U.S. Strategy in Iraq

Jim Woolsey: The U.S. historically has reacted pretty quickly, at least in modern times, to changes in enemy tactics.  We didn’t fight well on land for the first year of World War II for ’42, much in neither North Africa or the islands like Tarhuna, but we got better fast because the military is very candid in their after actions reports and the things that have to be corrected.  Lincoln, it took him two years to get his strategy and his general right, and he almost lost the 1864 election to McClellan.  If Sherman hadn’t burned Atlanta, he probably would have.  So that was a close one.  But Vietnam, it took them over three years in one way or another to give up on search and destroy, and to move toward clear and hold strategy that made it possible for Abrams really to defeat the Viet Cong.  People forget that in ’73 the Viet Cong were essentially defeated.  There was a pretty decent peace treaty with the north.  That’s what led to the exchange of prisoners, all of that.  The Viet Cong didn’t defeat South Vietnam or the United States.  What won the Vietnam War for the North was a main force, armored invasion of the south in ’75.  And the U.S. was so war-weary by that point that Congress didn’t support even using air forces and air power to help hold them off, and they defeated the south Vietnamese.  But I guess what one would conclude from that is that if you can make all your changes in the first year of a war – these are very rough historical analogies – you can probably start winning.  You can probably keep the American people’s support.  Two years is right at the margin, but three years is a very long time of continuing to fight a losing strategy.  And that’s what Johnson did with Westmorland in the Vietnam War, and that’s what Bush has done with his generals in this war.  Three years is very, very hard to come back from.

Recorded on: 7/6/07

The U.S. historically has reacted quickly to changes in enemy tactics. This time, Jim Woolsey says it's taking a little too long.

Plants have awareness and intelligence, argue scientists

Research in plant neurobiology shows that plants have senses, intelligence and emotions.

Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • The field of plant neurobiology studies the complex behavior of plants.
  • Plants were found to have 15-20 senses, including many like humans.
  • Some argue that plants may have awareness and intelligence, while detractors persist.
Keep reading Show less

Human extinction! Don't panic; think about it like a philosopher.

Most people think human extinction would be bad. These people aren't philosophers.

Shutterstock
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new opinion piece in The New York Times argues that humanity is so horrible to other forms of life that our extinction wouldn't be all that bad, morally speaking.
  • The author, Dr. Todd May, is a philosopher who is known for advising the writers of The Good Place.
  • The idea of human extinction is a big one, with lots of disagreement on its moral value.
Keep reading Show less

Space is dead: A challenge to the standard model of quantum mechanics

Since the idea of locality is dead, space itself may not be an aloof vacuum: Something welds things together, even at great distances.

Videos
  • Realists believe that there is an exactly understandable way the world is — one that describes processes independent of our intervention. Anti-realists, however, believe realism is too ambitious — too hard. They believe we pragmatically describe our interactions with nature — not truths that are independent of us.
  • In nature, properties of Particle B may be depend on what we choose to measure or manipulate with Particle A, even at great distances.
  • In quantum mechanics, there is no explanation for this. "It just comes out that way," says Smolin. Realists struggle with this because it would imply certain things can travel faster than light, which still seems improbable.
Keep reading Show less