Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
There is a strategy. But the mother strategy is to strengthen the Afghani government enough to fight this territorial battle without our intimate involvement.
I do not believe this is practical. This population is nowhere near what we dealt with in Iraq. The population in Iraq was educated. It is leaps and bounds ahead in regards to social habits. It is true that historical tribal identity haunts them (and will continue to do so), but clans divide the population in Afghanistan. And they are extremely corrupt. My point is that we have to stop thinking that we can "nation build" everywhere and with any society.
Our critics have been entirely stupid about these matters. They declared that Iraq's elections would be failures. They declared Iraq a civil war. They declared that Iraq was hopeless. And they declared Iraq another "Vietnam." They were always wrong, yet still ran their mouths as if they understood military matters and this region. They also go ahead and declare Afghanistan another "Vietnam," but they can't even get this default response to every conflict correct. In Vietnam, we supported an ever more corrupt government against a communist enemy. In the mean time, the Vietnamese were stuck between a government who cared less about them and the warring sides (American & Vietcong) that punished them for their allegiances. Where Afghanistan differs is that we aren't going to be run out of Afghanistan as the Afghani government crumbles. In the end, a corrupt Afghani government will limp along and deal with the festering Tali-Ban problem. But what we have to accept is that whatever this Afghani govenment does will be blamed on us. Same old story of the Middle East. Our critics are fond of pointing out today's enemies and how we "helped" to create them, but are to stupid to see that we are doing it right now.
So why don't we just leave right now?
Because the President hasn't given the order.
But since our military is to remain there, he may as well give them what they state they need. Can our military continue punishing and killing the enemy here with the present numbers? Absolutely. But one should never go to war with "just enough" (Even Rumsfeld has to be able to admit this behind closed doors.) It lengthens the conflict, expends more treasure, and creates an environment that is more dangerous than it has to be; not ony for our troops but also for the civilian population.
So you agree that since we will be leaving one of these days....Why not tomorrow & save some GI lives?
Because the President hasn't given the order.
But since our military is to remain there, he may as well give them what they state they need. Can our military continue punishing and killing the enemy here with the present numbers? Absolutely. But one should never go to war with "just enough" (Even Rumsfeld has to be able to admit this behind closed doors.) It lengthens the conflict, expends more treasure, and creates an environment that is more dangerous than it has to be; not ony for our troops but also for the civilian population.
The problem is that the military is divided on what they need, and what the right strategy is. Until the strategy going forward is known, troop level decisions are premature.
They aren't as divided as people think.
After 8 years of having their intelligence reports screened so as not to offend the politically correct nonesense coming out of the Clinton White House, our military leadership spent the next 7 years having their advice thrown in their face if it didn't agree with the idiocy of the Rumsfeld coven.
Our military leadership is shell shocked from this. And it doesn't help that some of our higher military leaders are part politicians who would rather please our civilian leaders than speak on absolute truths. But from what I've read from the Pentagon and the field commanders is that we need more troops if we are to continue this fight in theatre. And from what I know of this culture, I agree.
Gunny,
You and I are about on the same page. I'm not sure commiting another 10 brigades/regiments to pursue a strategy that won't work anyway is worth it. I would hate to see another guy die fight the Taliban, if that's not what we are going to end up doing.
So a theater commander asked for more troops...is this really a surprise. These guys don't stay in to be 4-stars because they are good-hearted. They are ultra-ambitious, as well. Casey didn't in Iraq, because he didn't believe in the war, IMO. This is now McChrystal's war and he wants to win...he has a legacy to write in the history books. But what he wants may not be feasible or even necessary...is that worth ten more brigades/regiments deploying to root out taliban? I'm not so sure...
So you agree that since we will be leaving one of these days....Why not tomorrow & save some GI lives?
If he's not going to give them the resources they need, then that's exactly what we should do.
Exactly,we should either go all in or all out....Not this halfarse nonsense going on now.
We can win, it'll just take a long time and some guts.
I don't think so, man. This isn't Iraq. It's so much different.
The terrain...the diverse populace and advanced multi-ethnic tribalism, the Kinetics are harder, the GOVT Corruption is worse, More rural areas to cover, lack of NATO support..etc, etc.
I was for the Surge in Iraq because I knew we could do it. I honestly don't think we can do this. We don't have the resources available right now or the political or national will to do it.
You know, the Taliban say:
You Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.
They are right, I'm sorry to say.
It isn't winnable, as long as folks continue to buy into the enemy propaganda.
I don't think so, man. This isn't Iraq. It's so much different.
The terrain...the diverse populace and advanced multi-ethnic tribalism, the Kinetics are harder, the GOVT Corruption is worse, More rural areas to cover, lack of NATO support..etc, etc.
I was for the Surge in Iraq because I knew we could do it. I honestly don't think we can do this. We don't have the resources available right now or the political or national will to do it.
You know, the Taliban say:
You Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.
They are right, I'm sorry to say.
I'm not sure commiting another 10 brigades/regiments to pursue a strategy that won't work...
From all the books you've read, you should have learned something:
No one occupies AFG. They lose and go home. Who has had any success there with an occupation?
I'm hardly an enemy propagandist believer...I'm a Realist.
From all the books you've read, you should have learned something:
No one occupies AFG. They lose and go home. Who has had any success there with an occupation?
I'm hardly an enemy propagandist believer...I'm a Realist.
No one had ever defeated the Soviets, before the US trained and armed a bunch of Asian hillbillies.
Funny you should mention that...
Not funny, at all. The Soviets were winning, before we showed up with modern arms and training. If not for US intervention, the Soviets would still be in Afghanistan.
Insurgencies are defeated all the time. The strategy will work.
I agree. I mean, it's funny you mentioned that b/c it's who were are fighting now (or the offspring of). Kinda came back around to bite us.
I think the Soviet definition of "winning" and ours are pretty catastrophically different.
I agree. I mean, it's funny you mentioned that b/c it's who were are fighting now (or the offspring of). Kinda came back around to bite us.
I think the Soviet definition of "winning" and ours are pretty catastrophically different.
The CIA trained them well, that much is true, but we ARE the CIA...we can beat them. It just takes time and blood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?