- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,686
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
GySgt, I have one coveat to add to your statements about NATO. Canada is currently the leader of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and has not been timidly moving forward. Canadian casualties are reported weekly and there is intense fighting going on now. What you're saying implies that NATO only has the ability, if it would quit its whining, to hold the fort until America arrives. What a sad twist of reality.
How long will America, Britain, Canada and other NATO countries remain in Afghanistan? It really doesn't matter because after they have gone the Taliban or someone like them will still be there. They win by simply out waiting the West. This is the lesson of history. America can arrive tomorrow or in 10 years, it won't make a difference. You're dealing with a fractured country made up of tribal sections that are multi-generational in nature.
Of all of Alexander the Great's conquests, Afghanistan was among the hardest and most time consuming. And of all the troops that Alexander left behind to garrison his new domains, an astonishing 95% were left in what is now modern Afghanistan. The British failed to conquer the country in the 1880's just as the Soviets failed 100 years later. Those who ignore the past are condemned to relive it. This is exactly what our leaders are doing today.
We didn't go into Iraq as heavy as we should have to occupy correctly and this is why we have had to correct the chaos for years the hard way. What do you think is happening in Afghanistan? Just one more example where even our "allies" refuse to do the job correctly. Mass deployments is what sees an effort quickly to bed. Not feeble attempts to prove support and a never ending bare minimum deployment schedule year after year.
We had 550,000 in Vietnam, certainly a mass deployment by any standard.
Mass deployment may stifle the symptoms of an insurgency, but not the cause of it.
I don't think a multi-generational effort is sustainable. I can't speak for the other nations but Canada won't be in there for that long. There is already talk of withdrawl by 2012.
We did not deploy 550,000 men to Vietnam. We gradually worked towards that number out of reaction and throughout the event our government treated it as a "conflict" and never gave it the attention it demanded.
I don't know what you mean here. A proper deployment to begin with reduces the abilities of an enemy to organize. If you wish to reduce crime in the streets, you place a "beat cop" at every corner. In a thoroughly broken society, such as Iraq, only large numbers of occupation troops provide a sound foundation for the rebirth of civil order. Whereever we cannot be, latent enemies emerge. We saw this in Iraq. Our enemies did not organize on the streets where our military was patrolling. They chose cities (Fallujah, Najaf) where our presence was limited or absent and attacked out.
Regardless, without the proper number of troops, in the beginning of an event like this, we are prevented from following the basic rules of occupation in the first place. And we've spent five years recovering from this blunder.
Sure seemed like the Govt gave it lots of attention to me.
Yes, brute force reduces the symptoms of crime/insurgency. But not the cause of it.
The Nazis used brute force in occupied Europe. The Soviets used brute force in Afghanistan. That suppressed but did not eliminated the insurgencies, and it died not eliminate the reasons for the insurgency, only magnified it.
The blunder was going in in the first place, based on your assertion of what were bald faced lies by this Administration about WMDs and the supposed threat they supposedly represented.
Not the right kind of attention. Their attention was based on reaction. One can't win a war when one's government pretends that it is little more than a conflict. Whther or not we agree on what war is the proper war for us, when our government decides to take part in one or conduct one, it has the obligation to give our troops everything they need to win it. This is called full commitment. What if we hit Normandy with only half the troop strength we did because half was "good enough?" Or hit Iwo Jima with "just enough" troops? We have been playing this "good enough" game since WWII and this is why we keep running into problems that always go back to troop strength. This idea we have that we can send men into war for a limited period of time and then relieve them with fresh green troops is stupid. We did not deploy to the Pacific theater or to Europe with this idea that a 6 month pump between units would do the job. What should take a matter of a relatively easy few years always turns into a long drawn out and expensive violent expedition.
I didn't say anything about "brute" force. It doesn't require "brute" force. It requires presence and proper execution. The Nazis conquered. The Soviets sought to conquer. We were always going to leave. Our entire history proves this. Giving them the opportunity to vote on their new government proves this. The insurgency in Iraq got much of its recruits from the Iraqi youth who had absolutely nothing to do. They had no jobs. No way to feed their families. No gaurantee of security. Militias were formed in order to not only attack American troops, but to protect their families from rival tribes. This is because we failed to occupy correctly.
Yeah, yeah. That's the America that defines that shining capital on the hill right? Support the dictators for oil stability in the Middle East during the Cold War, but refuse to topple them after the Cold War when we can finally focus on fixing oppressed regions for fear of the stigma that we only did it for oil? This is twisted morality. Hiding behind Bush lies and WMDs only furthers this sense of denial that you have about this failing civilization we are up against.
The way to get long term security from WMDs is not to watch oppressed and brutal civilizations who support religious terror drive themselves straight to hell while seeking someone to blame.
I disagree with your assertion that the 550,000 deployed to Vietnam was based on what was "just enough".
We were always going to leave in the capacity that we left Japan or Korea or Germany or Kuwait or the many other places the local governments have invited us to stay. Our base has nothing to do with controlling the country or the people. Nothing is contradicted. We did not go in as Nazis to conquer and to rule as you implied. We did not go in as imperialists as the Soviets did as you implied. We went in the same way we have always gone in. With every intention to give back with the possibility of leaving a base for future entanglements. We have never kept an inch of conquered territory abroad that wasn't offerred.Your claim that we were always going to leave is contradicted by Administration efforts to establish a permanent presence in Iraq.
I disagree with your assertion that the insurgency in Iraq is based on idle youth.
No, that is based upon your own assertion that the Administration knew that Iraq had no WMDs, and therefore deliberately lied to the public in order to justify a war that was otherwise unjustifiable.
The way to long term security is not attacking other nations based on bald faced lies, givening those who seek to foster support for hatred against the US perfect legitimacy.
Not us. Them. They will be left with something they have never been left with before. History lessons in regards to former conquerers do not apply. With a basic foundation and strength to protect their democracy, they only need generations of people to thrive. This entire "war on terror" is going to take decades and much of it will rely upon the Muslim people and their future generation. People born into freedom and democracy do not simply dismiss it away. They may take it for granted (U.S.A.), or they may give up some election power to government (Russia) or threaten to drown in tribal feuding (Pakistan), but most seek ways to protect it and to move forward (Turkey). The multi-generational effort, for not only Afghanistan but the region, is on their shoulders. This was always the case. We were never going to leave "Vermont" in the desert at the end of our military efforts.
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?