• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi Sunnis Trained by U.S. Return to al Qaeda

TacticalEvilDan said:
You essentially said we're having a hard time because this enemy isn't fighting like our enemies of the past.

In other words, you just said we're having a hard time fighting a guerrilla war.

:lol:

Oh, brother.



Okay, so you know absolutely nothing about the Swiss military. That's cool. I just happen to have a special interest in what happens in Switzerland is all.
Click to expand...

You still need to explain, explicitly, why you think the US Armed Forces sucks at fighting guerilla warfare.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You essentially did what I just caught apdst doing.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Eh, no. As I pointed out, since Vietname, we've been preparing for additional guerilla conflicts, and we are better than any other army in the world at combating it. What I went on to say was that this type of enemy needs to be fought long-term if you want to truly defeat them.
 
repeter said:
Eh, no. As I pointed out, since Vietname, we've been preparing for additional guerilla conflicts, and we are better than any other army in the world at combating it. What I went on to say was that this type of enemy needs to be fought long-term if you want to truly defeat them.
Click to expand...

How can we possibly be better than any army in the world at fighting guerrilla wars when we haven't won one?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Because we're not winning against a ragtag bunch of loosely allied fighters.

I've said this before.
Click to expand...

So? These people beat Alexander, and the U.S.S.R. to name some. And as I've said before, you can't beat an enemy like this overnight; it takes the better part of a productive decade to start beating them, and a few generations to call the victory decisive.

You're ignoring the object realities of the situation; it is impossible to win this type of war quickly, and "decisively" as you said.
 
repeter said:
Name a country that has won/beaten a guerilla insurgency.
Click to expand...

Without death squads? I've never heard of one.

You seem to think the fact that nobody has ever done it without mass-murder means that we're doing good to be doing as good as we are.

I'm sticking to the fact that we haven't won, which means we're no good at it.

We can invent all kinds of neato tactical toys, come up with all sorts of innovative training, but we can't beat these guys. That doesn't mean we suck, just that we suck at this.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Without death squads? I've never heard of one.

You seem to think the fact that nobody has ever done it without mass-murder means that we're doing good to be doing as good as we are.

I'm sticking to the fact that we haven't won, which means we're no good at it.

We can invent all kinds of neato tactical toys, come up with all sorts of innovative training, but we can't beat these guys. That doesn't mean we suck, just that we suck at this.
Click to expand...

Seriously, please stop ignoring what I'm telling you. As I've told you countless times already, you can't win this fight overnight, it requires a long-term committment. We haven't been in the war long enough to win it yet, as literally as that gets. A counter-insurgency mission takes generations, because you have to defeat ignorance in the populace, and that requires long-term development. The schools we've built/are building haven't been around long enough to teach a someone who enters one in preschool/kindergarten, and graduates from high school, or something similar to that.

How can you expect this war to have been over by now?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Without death squads? I've never heard of one.

You seem to think the fact that nobody has ever done it without mass-murder means that we're doing good to be doing as good as we are.

I'm sticking to the fact that we haven't won, which means we're no good at it.

We can invent all kinds of neato tactical toys, come up with all sorts of innovative training, but we can't beat these guys. That doesn't mean we suck, just that we suck at this.
Click to expand...

That comes as no surprise, there. Ever hear of Vietnam?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You essentially said we're having a hard time because this enemy isn't fighting like our enemies of the past.

In other words, you just said we're having a hard time fighting a guerrilla war.

:lol:

Oh, brother.
Click to expand...

Never said we are having a, "hard time", only that it's more time consuming, fighting this kind of enemy.



Okay, so you know absolutely nothing about the Swiss military. That's cool. I just happen to have a special interest in what happens in Switzerland is all.
Click to expand...

Well, by all means, educate me. I await with baited breath.
 
repeter said:
Seriously, please stop ignoring what I'm telling you. As I've told you countless times already, you can't win this fight overnight, it requires a long-term committment. We haven't been in the war long enough to win it yet, as literally as that gets. A counter-insurgency mission takes generations, because you have to defeat ignorance in the populace, and that requires long-term development. The schools we've built/are building haven't been around long enough to teach a someone who enters one in preschool/kindergarten, and graduates from high school, or something similar to that.

How can you expect this war to have been over by now?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I don't expect it to have been over by now.

Our military is not, nor has it been for well over a couple of hundred years, an organization of guerrilla fighters.

I'm convinced that there's a better way to do it and that we haven't found it yet. My feeling is that, until we do, we should stay the hell out of situations like this.

For crying out loud, if we can figure out how to split the atom, I think we could figure out how to be further along than we are after seven years of this kind of warfare. We just haven't yet.

Ergo, we're not good at this sort of thing.

I'm not saying I look at war like I look at microwave dinners, just that after several years and thousands of casualties, we've made way too little progress to rate ourselves as skilled in this kind of combat.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Believe it or not, I don't expect it to have been over by now.

Our military is not, nor has it been for well over a couple of hundred years, an organization of guerrilla fighters.

I'm convinced that there's a better way to do it and that we haven't found it yet. My feeling is that, until we do, we should stay the hell out of situations like this.

For crying out loud, if we can figure out how to split the atom, I think we could figure out how to be further along than we are after seven years of this kind of warfare. We just haven't yet.

Ergo, we're not good at this sort of thing.

I'm not saying I look at war like I look at microwave dinners, just that after several years and thousands of casualties, we've made way too little progress to rate ourselves as skilled in this kind of combat.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay I get what you're saying, that makes sense. But at the same time, you have to remember, especially in Afghanistan, we didn't have the political willpower to fully commit ourselves to beating the insurgency. When you look at levels of insurgent activity after our troop surge under Pres. Bush, we did a lot of good, but before that, we did a half-assed job of it.

There really isn't doubt in my mind that the troops and engineers could successfully win the war in say 15 to 20 years, but that would require full committment, and would result in no violence.
 
repeter said:
Oh, okay I get what you're saying, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I think I get where you're coming from, too. You're taking the Heinz approach -- which is not a bad one, by the way, seeing as how it's the best we've got at present.

I happen to think we should be able to improve upon what we can do now. A lot.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Honestly, I don't think I can keep having a serious discussion with someone who thinks we won Vietnam. Sorry.
Click to expand...

That's because you one of those folks that think we lost the war on the battlefield, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I think I get where you're coming from, too. You're taking the Heinz approach -- which is not a bad one, by the way, seeing as how it's the best we've got at present.

I happen to think we should be able to improve upon what we can do now. A lot.
Click to expand...

So, what is the, "Heinz approach"?
 
apdst said:
Please, tell us how we were defeated, on the battlefield, by the North Vietnamese.
Click to expand...

Let me answer your question with a question:

A grand master and a player of moderate skill sit down for a game of chess. The game ends in a stalemate -- the grand master with a king and two bishops and the other with just his king.

Who won?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It's a reference to catsup.
Click to expand...

IOW, it's totally irrelevant to the current discussion, as to battlefield tactics. Yes?


Still waiting for your disertation on how we lost Vietnam on the battlefield. Can't wait for that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom