Americans Never Learn

[DonDadda59]

And by that, I mean the American Government.

I was watching 60 minutes earlier and they had a report on the war in Afghanistan and how it's escalating. More troops will be sent into the fray in the near future as more rebel fighters pour into the country from the Pakistani borders.

Now, we're dealing with two quagmires in this and our unfinished business in Iraq. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, or more recently- The Soviet's failures in Afghanistan, fighting the same people we are now? Chasing fundamentalist fighters, zealots who fear neither persecution nor death... in their territory, is always a disastrous move. Our soldiers are a professional body, volunteers who join for various reasons- job security, benefits, college tuition, etc and some out of a sense of duty. The enemy fights for his freedom and is guided by his stone-firm religious principles. It's like the scene from Godfather, Part II when Michael explains to Hyman Roth why he's apprehensive about investing money in Cuba during the revolution:

Michael: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.

This will be a conflict without end. How do you defeat an enemy that blends into his surroundings- a zealot guerilla warrior, that is willing to fight to the very last man?

Semi-Related Side Note: Prohibition should have taught legislators that outlawing drugs does nothing to stem the problem, just empowers criminals and makes them rich while draining federal and local resources in another aimless and perpetual 'war'.

/Rant

[triangleoffense]

Good post. Anyone who can quote godfather and relate it to the real world is pretty aware.

[IcanzIIravor]

And by that, I mean the American Government.

I was watching 60 minutes earlier and they had a report on the war in Afghanistan and how it's escalating. More troops will be sent into the fray in the near future as more rebel fighters pour into the country from the Pakistani borders.

Now, we're dealing with two quagmires in this and our unfinished business in Iraq. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, or more recently- The Soviet's failures in Afghanistan, fighting the same people we are now? Chasing fundamentalist fighters, zealots who fear neither persecution nor death... in their territory, is always a disastrous move. Our soldiers are a professional body, volunteers who join for various reasons- job security, benefits, college tuition, etc and some out of a sense of duty. The enemy fights for his freedom and is guided by his stone-firm religious principles. It's like the scene from Godfather, Part II when Michael explains to Hyman Roth why he's apprehensive about investing money in Cuba during the revolution:

Michael: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.

This will be a conflict without end. How do you defeat an enemy that blends into his surroundings- a zealot guerilla warrior, that is willing to fight to the very last man?

Semi-Related Side Note: Prohibition should have taught legislators that outlawing drugs does nothing to stem the problem, just empowers criminals and makes them rich while draining federal and local resources in another aimless and perpetual 'war'.

/Rant

We are drawing down in Iraq. Many of the FOB's are closing down and being turned over to the Iraqi's. I think we'll have forces always stationed at Victory and around BIAP as well as some residual's in Basrah and elsewhere, but this war is coming to a close.

Don't get bogged down with what happened to the Soviets. I think there are some differences of significance, but we have made some key mistakes that we are too stubborn to rectify. We have to weed out corruption in the Afghan government, take away the power that the Warlords wield (They tend to play both sides in the conflict) and expand the influence of the government as well as reconstruction. More troops mean more FOB's as well as continue to pressure Pakistan to press ahead with their fight against the Taliban and its allies. I think losing Afghanistan will cost us more in the long run than the cost of staying and building it into a somewhat stable nation that won't be a haven for terrorists. I think realistically to do so will take forty plus years to a century to do so. I am, of course, aware not everyone shares my vision.

[Knicks101]

There's a war in Afghanistan? Since when?

[DonDadda59]

We are drawing down in Iraq. Many of the FOB's are closing down and being turned over to the Iraqi's. I think we'll have forces always stationed at Victory and around BIAP as well as some residual's in Basrah and elsewhere, but this war is coming to a close.

Notice how for the past few years, Iraq was all the rage in the media. It seemed as if the war in Afghanistan was dying down and out of the blue, hostilities flared up and now it's to the point that the commanders there are begging for major reinforcements. You have to remember that we're not fighting traditional armies that are tied to national boundaries- it's militia fighters from the entire region. I think it's their strategy to attack our weak points. As soon as we shift our focus away from Iraq and more into Afghanistan, then violence will spike in the former and we'll be in the same position as now.

We will never have victory in the sense we consider the word. We can have control of cities and local/national governments, but we'd constantly have to battle and weed out guerrilla forces. I'm getting an image of Bush landing on that carrier from his jet with that 'Mission Accomplished' sign in the background. We don't understand who we are fighting, and it will be (has been) to our detriment.


I think losing Afghanistan will cost us more in the long run than the cost of staying and building it into a somewhat stable nation that won't be a haven for terrorists. I think realistically to do so will take forty plus years to a century to do so. I am, of course, aware not everyone shares my vision.

I agree w/ you- what we are trying to do will take many, many years. I don't think we have the resources, or even more importantly, the resolve.

[IcanzIIravor]

Notice how for the past few years, Iraq was all the rage in the media. It seemed as if the war in Afghanistan was dying down and out of the blue, hostilities flared up and now it's to the point that the commanders there are begging for major reinforcements. You have to remember that we're not fighting traditional armies that are tied to national boundaries- it's militia fighters from the entire region. I think it's their strategy to attack our weak points. As soon as we shift our focus away from Iraq and more into Afghanistan, then violence will spike in the former and we'll be in the same position as now.

We will never have victory in the sense we consider the word. We can have control of cities and local/national governments, but we'd constantly have to battle and weed out guerrilla forces. I'm getting an image of Bush landing on that carrier from his jet with that 'Mission Accomplished' sign in the background. We don't understand who we are fighting, and it will be (has been) to our detriment.



I agree w/ you- what we are trying to do will take many, many years. I don't think we have the resources, or even more importantly, the resolve.

The war in Afghanistan took a back seat due to how violent Iraq was during that time period. The fighting had continued to go on, but most of the pool of fighters where being funnelled into Iraq through places like Syria and parts of Saudi Arabia. Most don't give a damn about Afghanistan, due to its remoteness and terrain and the Taliban w/supporters had been rebuilding and content to do more lighter hit and runs. Pakistan played a big part in allowing the Taliban room to regroup and they have paid a price for that as well, which is why they are battling the Taliban in parts.

The problem in Afghanistan is the people we need the most don't feel secure and that would be the people in the remote parts of Afghanistan. They recognize the Afghan government has no sway out there, they know we come and go and they know the warlords are on our side one day and on the Taliban/drug smuggler side the next. Until the people are made to feel safe enough to help identify smuggler trails and under intel it will be a long hard slog. As long as the war lords hold the power they have the central government will never be strong enough to provide that sense of security and hope.

I think we understand who we are fighting, but this is a generational struggle. It's not a war that can be wrapped up in a few short years or even another decade. It's a war that is as much in the hearts and minds as it is via bullets and missiles. If the people don't have a future they can try to attain then they will continue to be subject to violence and various militia groups rolling through.

The President has to put forth a vision of the future for Afghanistan and Iraq and carry forth that vision to the American people. He needs to be brutally honest and continue to update the people to the harsh reality of it. These are for the most part sanitized wars, in which most people haven't really had to share in the hard struggle or harshness, outside of their tax money, waiving the American flag and putting up ribbons. People have to be brought into what is at stake or it will be a conflict in which we lose and not just in the military sense of the word.

[rufuspaul]

Well your first mistake was watching 60 Minutes. Total tabloid trash.

[DonDadda59]

The war in Afghanistan took a back seat due to how violent Iraq was during that time period. The fighting had continued to go on, but most of the pool of fighters where being funnelled into Iraq through places like Syria and parts of Saudi Arabia.

My point exactly. We're not really fighting 'Iraqis' and 'Afghanis', it's different militias who in my estimation are working jointly in a calculated war plan. We were caught off guard (again, seems we have incompetent military leadership).


The Taliban has become a much more potent adversary in Afghanistan by improving its own tactics and finding gaps in the U.S. military playbook, according to senior American military officials who acknowledged that the enemy's resurgence this year has taken them by surprise.
-Washington Post, September 2009

It's almost like the rebels have studied Sun Tzu's work inside out- strategy, guerilla warfare, etc. Meanwhile the U.S. is still relying on open warfare and old battlefield tactics.

The strategy of shifting war fronts from the more fortified Iraq to the undermanned Afghanistan (and vice versa):

"You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy's weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapid than those of the enemy."

-Sun Tzu

On the U.S. sending troops and reinforcements from Iraq and other sources:

"For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak."

-Sun Tzu


But like I was saying, the Vietnam comparisons are succint:


Cameron, N.C.: Are the comparisons to Viet Nam warranted or just scare tactics?

Karen DeYoung: Without going into it too deeply, the Vietnam comparison , I think, is more valid than the Iraq one. Largely rural country that we know little to nothing about, difficult terrain, indigenous enemy, hearts and mind struggle, etc. etc.

-Washington Post

[DonDadda59]

Well your first mistake was watching 60 Minutes. Total tabloid trash.

Point still stands, regardless of your feelings for the program. And how do you equate 60 minutes of all programs w/ tabloid trash? You get it confused w/ Fox News?

[IcanzIIravor]

Well your first mistake was watching 60 Minutes. Total tabloid trash.

I disagree. 60 minutes can still bring it. You should try to discuss what he is saying instead of trying to turn the thread.

[bada bing]

excellent points and well said. Plus you quoted the Godfather. brilliant.

That is why it will be so difficult for any country/army to defeat guerillas and opposition that are willing to die for their cause. These guys do not care if they get shot. They are willing to go into line of fire without any sort of defense or protection. How do you defeat that without getting into the mindset of these people? The only way you can win this is if you do what Israel has done in the occupied territories by pretty much annihilating an entire population. Or you can try what Obama has tried and try to speak to these people and try to convince them that we are not the same as we were under Bush 8 years ago.

And no one give me that crap about how our soldiers are the same when they go to war. They are not. They are not wiling to kill themselves for their cause. In fact, these men do not have a cause. They are there because our politicians decided to send them there. Most of these men there do not know why they are there and are fighting people whose mindset believes in a cause for which they are willing to die.

[IcanzIIravor]

excellent points and well said. Plus you quoted the Godfather. brilliant.

That is why it will be so difficult for any country/army to defeat guerillas and opposition that are willing to die for their cause. These guys do not care if they get shot. They are willing to go into line of fire without any sort of defense or protection. How do you defeat that without getting into the mindset of these people? The only way you can win this is if you do what Israel has done in the occupied territories by pretty much annihilating an entire population. Or you can try what Obama has tried and try to speak to these people and try to convince them that we are not the same as we were under Bush 8 years ago.

And no one give me that crap about how our soldiers are the same when they go to war. They are not. They are not wiling to kill themselves for their cause. In fact, these men do not have a cause. They are there because our politicians decided to send them there. Most of these men there do not know why they are there and are fighting people whose mindset believes in a cause for which they are willing to die.

You're making a mistake as well. They aren't all religiously fanatical. You have to seperate the Taliban pre-invasion from the Taliban of today. There are still elements that are religiously fanatical and suicidal, but not all of them are. Many are coming in from other areas and are initially idealistic until the battle field. It's a similar mistake to the one we made in Iaq when we lumped everyone in with AQ instead of differentiating between the different groups and factions.

I have a lot of stuff that I usually save for a political board I post on. I'll start posting it here as well.

The way you defeat an insurgency is by turning the people on them. The thing we have going for us is how they treat the people. We need to do a better job at giving the people hope of a better future and they will turn. When they turn we have to be there to provide security for them and to teach them how to defend and fight for their beleif in a better time for their family.

[DonDadda59]

The way you defeat an insurgency is by turning the people on them. The thing we have going for us is how they treat the people. We need to do a better job at giving the people hope of a better future and they will turn. When they turn we have to be there to provide security for them and to teach them how to defend and fight for their beleif in a better time for their family.

Funny you bring this up. I was just watching a special on Mercenary forces and one particular group, EO (Executive Outcomes), were hired by the Sierre Leone gov. to oust rebels that were overrunning the country. They eventually did using guerrilla tactics and unconventional warfare and 'capturing the hearts and minds of the people', using them to gather info about the rebels and their movements. It wasn't too hard because they had been slaughtering, raping, and pillaging whole villages.

How do you suppose the U.S. government would do this in Afghanistan? I think it might be a bit harder because we're viewed as an occupying force by the people. Many counter-strikes that were targeted at insurgents have hit and killed innocents in various towns/villages. And although not all of the inhabitants are religious extremists, that theological barrier still exists.

[AmoebaD]

great points in this thread. one major issue which was briefly touched upon on 60 minutes was the role of pakistan in sponsoring the taliban. ever since the swat valley has been transformed from tourist friendly vacation spot to taliban stronghold, our military has been unable to maintain movement between these countries. it's like the taliban can just jump back and forth when convenient to keep our forces at bay. i'm sure india is pushing us to start putting more pressure on pakistan and that puppet zardari to crack down on the power and influence of the taliban in pakistan.

all of these countries are bordering on becoming failed states, i do not see what kind of infrastructure or security which we could put in place that would offer any type of quick fix within the next decade. shti is too complex and when you think the enemy is becoming more fractured and unorganized they just adjust and move forward. many of the strongest members of the fractured taliban reorganize and plot in pakistan where they are out of US jurisdiction, how the hell can we address that?

meanwhile, are we to believe the rest of the middle east is just going to sit back quietly... doubtful. we have no solid allies in the middle east, israel is too concerned about its own self defense and are just praying that we hop on iran. that would be a terrible mistake.

[kshutts1]

The first half of the OP, Don, yes... the 2nd half, about drugs, no.

Maybe I misread it (didn't take the time to read all the responses, I'm not very politically savvy), but it sounded like you were calling for drugs to be legalized, so that there is no underground market/empowering of criminals, etc?

So you'd rather have our government be responsible for the horrible things that happen to users (since cigarettes and alcohol prove, time and again, that government can't regulate usage on legal products...) when they OD, etc? Maybe I just didn't get that part of the post, but it really didn't seem to have a place.

[Meticode]

Government, you make Don mad. RAWR!

[Boogaloo]

excellent points and well said. Plus you quoted the Godfather. brilliant.

That is why it will be so difficult for any country/army to defeat guerillas and opposition that are willing to die for their cause. These guys do not care if they get shot. They are willing to go into line of fire without any sort of defense or protection. How do you defeat that without getting into the mindset of these people? The only way you can win this is if you do what Israel has done in the occupied territories by pretty much annihilating an entire population. Or you can try what Obama has tried and try to speak to these people and try to convince them that we are not the same as we were under Bush 8 years ago.

And no one give me that crap about how our soldiers are the same when they go to war. They are not. They are not wiling to kill themselves for their cause. In fact, these men do not have a cause. They are there because our politicians decided to send them there. Most of these men there do not know why they are there and are fighting people whose mindset believes in a cause for which they are willing to die.


Your post is full of shieeet. Sources that Israel decimated entire population? Give me a fawkin break. Give me proof of both. Most of our soldiers dont know what they are doing down there? Bullcrap

I know some guys who served down there. They KNOW why they are there for. Some might not agree but most know what the mission is.

So please stop talking out of your asss

[JtotheIzzo]

And by that, I mean the American Government.

I was watching 60 minutes earlier and they had a report on the war in Afghanistan and how it's escalating. More troops will be sent into the fray in the near future as more rebel fighters pour into the country from the Pakistani borders.

Now, we're dealing with two quagmires in this and our unfinished business in Iraq. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, or more recently- The Soviet's failures in Afghanistan, fighting the same people we are now? Chasing fundamentalist fighters, zealots who fear neither persecution nor death... in their territory, is always a disastrous move. Our soldiers are a professional body, volunteers who join for various reasons- job security, benefits, college tuition, etc and some out of a sense of duty. The enemy fights for his freedom and is guided by his stone-firm religious principles. It's like the scene from Godfather, Part II when Michael explains to Hyman Roth why he's apprehensive about investing money in Cuba during the revolution:

Michael: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.

This will be a conflict without end. How do you defeat an enemy that blends into his surroundings- a zealot guerilla warrior, that is willing to fight to the very last man?

Semi-Related Side Note: Prohibition should have taught legislators that outlawing drugs does nothing to stem the problem, just empowers criminals and makes them rich while draining federal and local resources in another aimless and perpetual 'war'.

/Rant

Afghanistan is no Iraq (for many reasons).

Politically, NATO has been heavily involved in the conflict since 2002. There is no turning back.

More US troops (the best trained and equipped) will hopefully have the same effect the surge did around Baghdad.

The goal is to make the gov't and army in Afghanistan the toughest meanest 'gang.' The goal is not to pacify everyone. Keep enough of the warlords down until you can build up the army and the gov't.

That is the focus.

[Boogaloo]

Afghanistan is no Iraq (for many reasons).

Politically, NATO has been heavily involved in the conflict since 2002. There is no turning back.

More US troops (the best trained and equipped) will hopefully have the same effect the surge did around Baghdad.

The goal is to make the gov't and army in Afghanistan the toughest meanest 'gang.' The goal is not to pacify everyone. Keep enough of the warlords down until you can build up the army and the gov't.

That is the focus.

Afghanistan is deeply rooted in tribal culture. Its difficult to have a national army when parts of your army is more loyal to their clan than the country. That is why there is a lot of internal violence in Afghanistan, one tribe calling the other "TALIBAN" so they can get rid of them.

Also unlike Iraqis who are more modernized and therefore more adaptable to change, Afghans are deeply rooted in tribal traditions and lack of government and therefore it is harder to gain their trust if you are an outsider (ie from different clan, different part of the country) Everyone can be double crossed if you are not part of the family. They are as s backwards (no offense)

Second Pakistan. As long as the insurgents have a fairly safe haven across the border to train and re-equip this conflict will go on forever.

[oh the horror]

They're literally battling an concept, and way of life over there. This isnt a war to be "won" at this point because there is no clear resolve. I mean in reality what was the purpose of actually going there in the first place? A war on terrorism? Sounds about as effective as the "war on drugs"

[Boogaloo]

They're literally battling an concept, and way of life over there. This isnt a war to be "won" at this point because there is no clear resolve. I mean in reality what was the purpose of actually going there in the first place? A war on terrorism? Sounds about as effective as the "war on drugs"

local afghans actually do not like the taliban. But I do agree that it would be hard to defeat the tribal thinking and backwards mentality of afghans.

War on terror can be won. But is the country fighting willing to really go after the big fishes? ie. Saudi, Pakistan for terrorism. Mexico/Columbia/US currupt top goverment officials for narcos?

[AmoebaD]

i think the war on drugs is working in the eyes of many... ask the co's getting overtime and the politicians campaigning on being tough on crime. prisons keep poppin up yet california is at the point of letting thousands free? seems like the prison industrial complex is like a more domestic military industrial complex. but i digress.

it is true though, there is no way to measure victory against terror. there are other problem spots in the middle east which could swing in favor of us or against us but we can not look past what is escalating in afghanistan.

we talk about NATO forces in afghanistan, but aren't they really just a drop in the bucket? i'm looking for some kind of comparison in the allied deployment to afghanistan but i thought most of the foreign soldiers are only a help in nominal terms. i need more clarification on the NATO forces and their assistance to our troops if anyone can put me up on that.

i just hate that we are so centered on the middle east right now and we can't create long term power structure even in iraq. once we commit further to afghanistan, iraq will need more attention, pakistan will continue to funnel bad guys wherever needed.. it's just some revolving door of terror. when and where will it end? in iran? .....

plus obama has his hands tied and i going to have to deploy more troops regardless. he has to make sure he doesn't offend any critics and all.

[AmoebaD]

is it a given that iraq is stabilized now? won't it take a while to even measure what we consider stabilized to be?

[bada bing]

Your post is full of shieeet. Sources that Israel decimated entire population? Give me a fawkin break. Give me proof of both. Most of our soldiers dont know what they are doing down there? Bullcrap

I know some guys who served down there. They KNOW why they are there for. Some might not agree but most know what the mission is.

So please stop talking out of your asss

i knew you sensitive 'anti-semite' calling idiots would show up. You want sources that show you that the palestinians are dissapearing? are you blind? go watch how they are systematically being eradicated from their own homeland. I am not going to sit here and argue about these things with you blinded supporters of terrorism. I can't believe our government looks the other way against terrorism committed by your people while we invade other terrorists. Go **** yourself. Sources? go read your book and learn what your religion teaches you instead of arguing and denying the actions of your zionist terrorists.

[Boogaloo]

i think the war on drugs is working in the eyes of many... ask the co's getting overtime and the politicians campaigning on being tough on crime. prisons keep poppin up yet california is at the point of letting thousands free? seems like the prison industrial complex is like a more domestic military industrial complex. but i digress.

it is true though, there is no way to measure victory against terror. there are other problem spots in the middle east which could swing in favor of us or against us but we can not look past what is escalating in afghanistan.

we talk about NATO forces in afghanistan, but aren't they really just a drop in the bucket? i'm looking for some kind of comparison in the allied deployment to afghanistan but i thought most of the foreign soldiers are only a help in nominal terms. i need more clarification on the NATO forces and their assistance to our troops if anyone can put me up on that.

i just hate that we are so centered on the middle east right now and we can't create long term power structure even in iraq. once we commit further to afghanistan, iraq will need more attention, pakistan will continue to funnel bad guys wherever needed.. it's just some revolving door of terror. when and where will it end? in iran? .....

plus obama has his hands tied and i going to have to deploy more troops regardless. he has to make sure he doesn't offend any critics and all.

You got British, Canadians, Poles, French and Ozzies spilling their blood there. I don't think that is nominal terms. Just recently some German guys got ambushed.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4418762,00.html


German Defense Minister Franz Joseph Jung said an investigation would be launched into the soldiers' deaths, which bring the total number of Bundeswehr casualties in Afghanistan to 35.

He said that the troops "died in the cause of peace," but added that their deaths would not deter Germany from participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission to stabilize Afghanistan.

There are around 3,800 German soldiers in Afghanistan, 1,100 of them in the Kunduz region. Germany is the third-largest contributor to ISAF

[AmoebaD]

i knew you sensitive 'anti-semite' calling idiots would show up. You want sources that show you that the palestinians are dissapearing? are you blind? go watch how they are systematically being eradicated from their own homeland. I am not going to sit here and argue about these things with you blinded supporters of terrorism. I can't believe our government looks the other way against terrorism committed by your people while we invade other terrorists. Go **** yourself. Sources? go read your book and learn what your religion teaches you instead of arguing and denying the actions of your zionist terrorists.

:(

hereeee we go...

http://www.subvertednation.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jews-fake-bomb-threat-new-jersey.jpg

[Boogaloo]

i knew you sensitive 'anti-semite' calling idiots would show up. You want sources that show you that the palestinians are dissapearing? are you blind? go watch how they are systematically being eradicated from their own homeland. I am not going to sit here and argue about these things with you blinded supporters of terrorism. I can't believe our government looks the other way against terrorism committed by your people while we invade other terrorists. Go **** yourself. Sources? go read your book and learn what your religion teaches you instead of arguing and denying the actions of your zionist terrorists.

Palestinians dissapearing?


According to a Palestinian census, the population of Gaza jumped by 40 percent between 1997 and 2007. West Bank officials expect the Gaza population, which they estimate at 1.4 million, to double over the next 21 years.

The growth rate in Gaza is roughly three times the global average, according to U.N. estimates.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090215_gazas_baby_boom/


Stop talking out of your assss you dumb ***. dont derail the thread

[AmoebaD]

i did not know germany had so many troops involved. that is great, i just didn't know the amount of soldiers from other countries helping and how big the coalition actually was. when i used the word nominal, those were referring to those who are during security in the "safe regions" where the US forces have already established some type of stronghold, if that is even possible. but thanks for that tidbit on the germans.

[Boogaloo]

i did not know germany had so many troops involved. that is great, i just didn't know the amount of soldiers from other countries helping and how big the coalition actually was. when i used the word nominal, those were referring to those who are during security in the "safe regions" where the US forces have already established some type of stronghold, if that is even possible. but thanks for that tidbit on the germans.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Afghanistan_ISAF_Sept2008.jpg/800px-Afghanistan_ISAF_Sept2008.jpg

no prob. Also wiki ISAF

[DonDadda59]

They're literally battling an concept, and way of life over there. This isnt a war to be "won" at this point because there is no clear resolve. I mean in reality what was the purpose of actually going there in the first place? A war on terrorism? Sounds about as effective as the "war on drugs"

bingo :applause:


i just hate that we are so centered on the middle east right now and we can't create long term power structure even in iraq. once we commit further to afghanistan, iraq will need more attention, pakistan will continue to funnel bad guys wherever needed.. it's just some revolving door of terror. when and where will it end? in iran? .....


My point exactly, it's the tactic of hit-and-run Guerilla style warfare. Hit the enemy at his weak points, when he tries to reinforce said points, keep moving and attack a new weak point. Classic Sun Tzu. Once we inevitably send more troops and reinforcements to Afghanistan, we'll be under the false impression (Again) that the country has been somewhat stabilized, there'll be a period of calm for a while and then the explosions will start going off in Iraq again and the cycle of reinforcing one front at a time will perpetuate itself. And like you said, as long as there's safe havens in bordering countries, specifically Pakistan, then there's no way to stem the tide of guerilla warriors pouring in.



United Nations, 10 January 2004 (RFE/RL) -- UN envoy Jean Arnault says progress in Afghanistan's disarmament and demobilization campaign has played a major role in improving stability in much of the country.

Arnault told the UN Security Council today that 33,000 militiamen have now been disarmed in the country and the program of heavy weapons cantonment is nearly complete. He said the demobilization of remaining Afghan militia forces -- numbering more than 20,000 -- should be finished by next summer.

The demobilization program provides space for political reforms to proceed. Arnault expressed confidence that parliamentary elections set for this spring will help strengthen the state-building process. "The repeated failures of extremists to derail the electoral process, combined with the better performance of security forces, point today to the possibility that the current improvement in the overall security situation will be sustained," Arnault said.

Almost 6 years later and we're still trying to stabilize the situation :violin:

[DonDadda59]

Government, you make Don mad. RAWR!

Pics of your wife or GTFO.

[triangleoffense]

seriously the shlt he's saying is pretty obvious. Anyone who denies that the freedom fighters of the middleeast are way more fanatical and devoted than our troops seriously needs to get out of the cave. If anyone has watched generation kill there is a good scene on there that proves his point, it's based off a book written by a journalist who went to iraq in 2003. It follows the day to day operations of a marine recon team in Iraq. So the recon marines set up a perimeter outside this town that they are bombing/airstriking. When everything seems to have calmed down they go in and see a dead student's body on the ground. Turns out he was a graduate student enrolled in a school in Palestine. Just came to iraq a week ago. For the reason why he came to iraq he put: Jihad. Serious shlt.

[DonDadda59]

Hmmm, maybe I should turn this into a rep whore thread, I should have 200 replies by the end of the day :oldlol:

Green bars, I got your green bars here!

[IcanzIIravor]

Afghanistan is no Iraq (for many reasons).

Politically, NATO has been heavily involved in the conflict since 2002. There is no turning back.

More US troops (the best trained and equipped) will hopefully have the same effect the surge did around Baghdad.

The goal is to make the gov't and army in Afghanistan the toughest meanest 'gang.' The goal is not to pacify everyone. Keep enough of the warlords down until you can build up the army and the gov't.

That is the focus.

I actually think the long term mistake being made is with the autonomy we allow the warlords. As long as they are free to pick and choose which side they are on in a given day or week the central government will never have the reach needed to give the outter living people a reason to turn on the Taliban instead of trying to stay out of the way.

Realistically this is something that will take 50 plus years to effectively begin to unravel and even longer than that to effectively change the mindset for good. We'll have to stay embedded in outer lying FOB's permanently and continue to build and strengthen all aspects of Afghan living as well as weed out the government corruption while expanding its power.

[DonDadda59]

Realistically this is something that will take 50 plus years to effectively begin to unravel and even longer than that to effectively change the mindset for good. We'll have to stay embedded in outer lying FOB's permanently and continue to build and strengthen all aspects of Afghan living as well as weed out the government corruption while expanding its power.

Put yourself in the commander-in-chief's chair-

You have the quagmire that is the wars in the middle east and you were elected partially based on the platform of ending deployment there and bringing home the troops. Now you have to instill confidence in the populace and troops to support your 50+ year occupation plan.

How do you pull this off?

[IcanzIIravor]

Put yourself in the commander-in-chief's chair-

You have the quagmire that is the wars in the middle east and you were elected partially based on the platform of ending deployment there and bringing home the troops. Now you have to instill confidence in the populace and troops to support your 50+ year occupation plan.

How do you pull this off?

Brutal honesty. I would mention and emphasize the draw down in Iraq, while being honest about the small force that we are keeping in Iraq. I would lay out to long term possibilities. One involving what could happen if we pull out of Aghanistan and one that could happen if we stay. I then would explain why I think we need to stay, whatever the cost, and how it affects America's long term security. How taking away an area in which AQ was able to thrive is good for America's long term safety and how it is good for America's allies and how long term the world would benifit. I would walk America through Afghanistan's long history and how the culture is and place that into perspective to show just how difficult the job is.

I'd lay out a road map for major steps, that while flexible would be held up before the American people at set dates. Our strategy would be flexible as needed, but with a clear goal and vision. I would emphasize to the American people that there is no short term solution and that whether I was around for 4 years or 8, in order for this vision to work, President's and leaders after me...long after me would have to take up where I and others have left off. That we are doing something unprecidented, but the fruits of our leader if we succeeded would help reshape the course of history.

Something like that. :lol

[DonDadda59]

Spoken like a true politician :oldlol:

But people who were expecting a systematic pull out of troops from the region in the very near future will not be too thrilled to find out about the 50+ year occupation plan you vaguely laid out. Would Congress really want to foot the bill for that? Could they even if they wanted to?

Also, what happens when, inevitably, the drawback in troops in Iraq leads to fresh breakouts of violence there? How would you address the border issue- the influx of guerrillas from places like Pakistan? Surely, that would be a continuous thorn on the side of any productive reconstruction plans.

[johndeeregreen]

Our soldiers are a professional body, volunteers who join for various reasons- job security, benefits, college tuition, etc and some out of a sense of duty. The enemy fights for his freedom and is guided by his stone-firm religious principles.
Can you explain why the enemy got the shit kicked out of him in Afghanistan, then?

[IcanzIIravor]

Spoken like a true politician :oldlol:

But people who were expecting a systematic pull out of troops from the region in the very near future will not be too thrilled to find out about the 50+ year occupation plan you vaguely laid out. Would Congress really want to foot the bill for that? Could they even if they wanted to?

Also, what happens when, inevitably, the drawback in troops in Iraq leads to fresh breakouts of violence there? How would you address the border issue- the influx of guerrillas from places like Pakistan? Surely, that would be a continuous thorn on the side of any productive reconstruction plans.

Expectation meets reality. Congress wouldn't want though I think we could foot such a bill. Without the support of the American people it won't stand a chance which is why I'd be upfront and honest. If the people reject it and thus Congress balks then I've done what I could. I would continue to try and if I failed I would hope the worst case doesn't come to pass.

No guerrilla's will be flooding into Iraq from Afghanistan as they don't border each other and guerrilla's won't be flooding into Iraq regardless. The Sunni and Shia made it abundantly clear that won't be happening again. Any violence now will be between rival Sunni and Shia factions, which the Iraqi's can handle internally. From what I've seen civil war isn't likely here.

[bada bing]

Can you explain why the enemy got the shit kicked out of him in Afghanistan, then?

wtf does that have to do with anything? Even after so much ass kicking the enemy continues to come back and face us. Stop being a delusional brainwashed bush hugger.

[johndeeregreen]

wtf does that have to do with anything? Even after so much ass kicking the enemy continues to come back and face us. Stop being a delusional brainwashed bush hugger.
Yes, stating that American military forces kicked ass in Afghanistan makes me a "brainwashed bush hugger." You are ****ed up psychologically in so many ways I don't even know why I bother to respond to you.

[johndeeregreen]

@ Don, to clarify: Any war with insurgents is extremely open ended and impossible to fully eliminate total opposition. That said, I don't think that your comment is fully accurate. Vietnam was the same situation yet was one of the most successful campaigns in American military history. To me it felt as if your comment was saying that the insurgents are capable of defeating American forces militarily, because they simply are not.

[DonDadda59]

@ Don, to clarify: Any war with insurgents is extremely open ended and impossible to fully eliminate total opposition. That said, I don't think that your comment is fully accurate. Vietnam was the same situation yet was one of the most successful campaigns in American military history. To me it felt as if your comment was saying that the insurgents are capable of defeating American forces militarily, because they simply are not.

I think you need to brush up on your history. How exactly was a war- that ended in a ceasefire, w/ the communist opposition gaining control over the South (which was the point of the war in the first place)-considered one of the most successful campaigns in American military history? :wtf:

[IcanzIIravor]

I think you need to brush up on your history. How exactly was a war- that ended in a ceasefire, w/ the communist opposition gaining control over the South (which was the point of the war in the first place)-considered one of the most successful campaigns in American military history? :wtf:

I think he is speaking strictly in terms of we basically won every battle and most engagements outside of that. In totality it was a failure, but not as far as military might is concerned. We won militarily speaking straight up, but failed in strategic thinking as well as failure to explain to the American people what our goal was and why we needed to die there. It was a terrible war that we didn't need to fight.

[Boogaloo]

I think you need to brush up on your history. How exactly was a war- that ended in a ceasefire, w/ the communist opposition gaining control over the South (which was the point of the war in the first place)-considered one of the most successful campaigns in American military history? :wtf:

N. Vietnam militarily got their ass kicked. The tet offensive was a complete rout of the commies. Bombing raids into N. Vietnam "Linebacker" forced N. Vietnam into the table.

The problem in Vietnam was not military. Its its the lack of support by the public, and the micro managing of politicians that ultimately led to the conflict being considered a failure.

The only reason the North took over is because the US military withdrew from the south.

Brush up on your history

[Boogaloo]

I think he is speaking strictly in terms of we basically won every battle and most engagements outside of that. In totality it was a failure, but not as far as military might is concerned. We won militarily speaking straight up, but failed in strategic thinking as well as failure to explain to the American people what our goal was and why we needed to die there. It was a terrible war that we didn't need to fight.

Don't know about this one. The political climate of the time, and the Soviet threat was very real during the 60s. I think the war could have been won. Just too much politicos getting involved in the planning, and no clear end goals were set.

[DonDadda59]

N. Vietnam militarily got their ass kicked. The tet offensive was a complete rout of the commies. Bombing raids into N. Vietnam "Linebacker" forced N. Vietnam into the table.

The problem in Vietnam was not military. Its its the lack of support by the public, and the micro managing of politicians that ultimately led to the conflict being considered a failure.

The only reason the North took over is because the US military withdrew from the south.

Brush up on your history

:oldlol:

Doesn't matter how the fighting went, we could've walked away from the war w/o a single casualty but the fact that we withdrew and the communists gained control of the South means we failed miserably.

Same w/ Afghanistan- we can route their troops but if we can't quell the rebels/warlords/guerrillas and the taliban reigns supreme in the region after we pull out... who won?

[Boogaloo]

wtf does that have to do with anything? Even after so much ass kicking the enemy continues to come back and face us. Stop being a delusional brainwashed bush hugger.

still waiting for your sources dumb as s.

[Boogaloo]

:oldlol:

Doesn't matter how the fighting went, we could've walked away from the war w/o a single casualty but the fact that we withdrew and the communists gained control of the South means we failed miserably.

Same w/ Afghanistan- we can route their troops but if we can't quell the rebels/warlords/guerrillas and the taliban reigns supreme in the region after we pull out... who won?

US could have not walked away. Soviet threat and influence was very real at that time. Us doctrine was to block the spread of communism first and formost

[Boogaloo]

:oldlol:

Doesn't matter how the fighting went, we could've walked away from the war w/o a single casualty but the fact that we withdrew and the communists gained control of the South means we failed miserably.

Same w/ Afghanistan- we can route their troops but if we can't quell the rebels/warlords/guerrillas and the taliban reigns supreme in the region after we pull out... who won?

I agree US failed in Vietnam. But they failed because of lack of political will and public support. Not they failed because militarily incompetent.

Afghanistan is different. There are a lot more countries participating and it seems public outcry in the US is not as bad as it was in Iraq.

[IcanzIIravor]

Don't know about this one. The political climate of the time, and the Soviet threat was very real during the 60s. I think the war could have been won. Just too much politicos getting involved in the planning, and no clear end goals were set.

I disagree and the years that followed prove it out. We went in under the irrational fear that communism would sweep through all of Asia and elsewhere if we didn't provide a check to it. The last 50 plus years has born out that communism is its own check as it often devours from within and collapses. We would have never won the war in the end as we would have had to expand the war into the neghboring countries in which the enemy often resupplied or retreated into. It wasn't worth that, not to mention the war strategy we used to fight the guerrilla's in itself would have just created more enemies and kept the local populaces either neutral or giving aid to the enemy. Strategically I just can't see how the Vietnam war was in our long term interest.

[DonDadda59]

I disagree and the years that followed prove it out. We went in under the irrational fear that communism would sweep through all of Asia and elsewhere if we didn't provide a check to it. The last 50 plus years has born out that communism is its own check as it often devours from within and collapses. We would have never won the war in the end as we would have had to expand the war into the neghboring countries in which the enemy often resupplied or retreated into. It wasn't worth that, not to mention the war strategy we used to fight the guerrilla's in itself would have just created more enemies and kept the local populaces either neutral or giving aid to the enemy. Strategically I just can't see how the Vietnam war was in our long term interest.

The same EXACT thing could be said about Afghanistan. The parallels are really uncanny, but clearly we haven't learned a damn thing.

[IcanzIIravor]

The same EXACT thing could be said about Afghanistan. The parallels are really uncanny, but clearly we haven't learned a damn thing.

I disagree. We're in Afghanistan because it was the base AQ used to attack us. Had the Taliban revoked guest rights and handed the top AQ leaders over and disbanded the terror groups bases we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan. I don't think Afghanistan is a war of choice at all. We didn't initiate it as we did in Vietnam and Iraq. For the most part the people aren't giving material aid to the Taliban as happened in Iraq and Vietnam. Afghanistan features people afraid to take any side due to a long history of the various sides screwing them and leaving them to the mercy of the one who temporarily comes out on top.

Now I do agree that the strategy we have been using is wrong and we need to overhaul it if we want any long term success outside of winning a skirmish here and offensive there.

[DonDadda59]

I disagree

Well, let's look at the similarities.


We went in under the irrational fear that communism would sweep through all of Asia and elsewhere if we didn't provide a check to it.


If the Vietnam war was an irrational fight against the ideals of communism, the war in Afghanistan started out as an irrational fight against terror- with the notion that taking out the Taliban would somehow stymie the growth of an ideal in people's minds in the country/region.


We would have never won the war in the end as we would have had to expand the war into the neghboring countries in which the enemy often resupplied or retreated into.


"The TTP(Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) swears allegiance to Mullah Omar, chief of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and sends fighters across the border to Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban are fighting what they call Western "occupation" forces. The Pakistani Taliban support that and also want their version of Islamist rule in Pakistan. Estimates of the strength of Mehsud's faction alone vary from about 10,000 fighters to more than 20,000"

-"Who are the Pakistani Taliban Insurgents"; BBC News; August 2009


It wasn't worth that, not to mention the war strategy we used to fight the guerrilla's in itself would have just created more enemies and kept the local populaces either neutral or giving aid to the enemy.


"Reporting from Washington - A top U.S. and allied commander set the stage for a recommendation to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, calling Monday for an overhaul in strategy to help stem losses that began during the Bush administration and have accelerated in recent months.

In a brief statement about his internal report, released by the command in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal acknowledged that turning the war around would be difficult.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said."

-"Gen. McChrystal calls for overhaul of Afghanistan war strategy", LA Times; September 2009

More troops is the new strategy, huh? Sounds a whole lot like this...

"With their characteristic flair for panicky oversimplification, the drumbeaters for the Vietnam war have heen trying to make it seem that the central isuse in the current Washington discussions of the war is whether this country sends more troops."

-"Vietnam Calls Not for More Troops but for New Strategy", LA Times; March 1968



Strategically I just can't see how the Vietnam war was in our long term interest.

Same can be said for Afghanistan.

[IcanzIIravor]

Well, let's look at the similarities.



If the Vietnam war was an irrational fight against the ideals of communism, the war in Afghanistan started out as an irrational fight against terror- with the notion that taking out the Taliban would somehow stymie the growth of an ideal in people's minds in the country/region.



"The TTP(Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) swears allegiance to Mullah Omar, chief of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and sends fighters across the border to Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban are fighting what they call Western "occupation" forces. The Pakistani Taliban support that and also want their version of Islamist rule in Pakistan. Estimates of the strength of Mehsud's faction alone vary from about 10,000 fighters to more than 20,000"

-"Who are the Pakistani Taliban Insurgents"; BBC News; August 2009



"Reporting from Washington - A top U.S. and allied commander set the stage for a recommendation to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, calling Monday for an overhaul in strategy to help stem losses that began during the Bush administration and have accelerated in recent months.

In a brief statement about his internal report, released by the command in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal acknowledged that turning the war around would be difficult.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said."

-"Gen. McChrystal calls for overhaul of Afghanistan war strategy", LA Times; September 2009

More troops is the new strategy, huh? Sounds a whole lot like this...

"With their characteristic flair for panicky oversimplification, the drumbeaters for the Vietnam war have heen trying to make it seem that the central isuse in the current Washington discussions of the war is whether this country sends more troops."

-"Vietnam Calls Not for More Troops but for New Strategy", LA Times; March 1968




Same can be said for Afghanistan.

We didn't go in to root out the Taliban. Go back to the demands we initially made to the Taliban. We only went in when they refused to hand over those responsible for 9/11. The goal was to get AQ. The only reason it turned into a 'Roll up the Taliban' too is because they stood side by side with AQ.

Mullah Omar is not the key figure of the Taliban to worry about. We killed one of the key figures in Baitullah Mahsud who is a far bigger threat than Omar. Omar is like OBL. He is a spiritual figure, but not one of the key war strategist for the Taliban of today.

If you go to Google news and look up 'Taliban' you'll see the problems they have. They aren't one large cohesive group, but filled with different factions with different goals. Several of those factions actually fought each other after Mahsud was killed.

As for our strategy, I've pointed out early on that it needs to change. We not only need a larger force but we have to live out in FOB's far out and be around the people who live away from the cities and main populations and stay year after year to give the people a reason to want to stand up to the Taliban. Construction, education and security go hand in hand.

Vietnam never housed anyone who attacked us. We attacked Vietnam. The Afghan people aren't giving material aid to the Taliban like the Vietnamese people did with the Vietcng and others. The Afghan people are on the sideline scared because they think this is the same old song and dance.

[bada bing]

Yes, stating that American military forces kicked ass in Afghanistan makes me a "brainwashed bush hugger." You are ****ed up psychologically in so many ways I don't even know why I bother to respond to you.

nope. What makes you a brainwashed bush hugger is you asking that stupid questions and being all ignorant of what is actually happening with the enemy. I hope you get shipped to afghanistan so some suicide bomber can make you his meat kabob. Retarded dumb****s like yourself should all be sent away to war.

[DonDadda59]

...

Don't know how you can argue that the Vietnam war was a pointless, prolonged, virtually unwinnable war and you think it'll take 50+ years to pacify Afghanistan... but you don't see the similarities between the 2.

If you're right (which I wouldn't really argue against) and it would take decades to fully 'win' the war, how many roadside bombs going off, how many dead soldiers, how many billions of dollars spent, how many years will it take before we decide it's not worth it and pull out leaving the country in the hands of the Taliban or other enemy combatant groups?

I'll tell you right now, brutal honesty of that sort on Obama's or any other commander-in-chief's part will lead to nothing but impeachment talk :oldlol:

There's no way in hell the American populace will put up with a conflict that long-lasting. It's just history repeating itself and us not learning anything from past mistakes.

[IcanzIIravor]

Don't know how you can argue that the Vietnam war was a pointless, prolonged, virtually unwinnable war and you think it'll take 50+ years to pacify Afghanistan... but you don't see the similarities between the 2.

If you're right (which I wouldn't really argue against) and it would take decades to fully 'win' the war, how many roadside bombs going off, how many dead soldiers, how many billions of dollars spent, how many years will it take before we decide it's not worth it and pull out leaving the country in the hands of the Taliban or other enemy combatant groups?

I'll tell you right now, brutal honesty of that sort on Obama's or any other commander-in-chief's part will lead to nothing but impeachment talk :oldlol:

There's no way in hell the American populace will put up with a conflict that long-lasting. It's just history repeating itself and us not learning anything from past mistakes.

I disagree it is anywhere near Vietnam with the main reason being the people aren't supporting the Taliban or AQ. If you look at history every successful insurgency has at its base support of the common people of the area. Our trouble is bad tactics and the inherit rugged terrain and isolation of the area in which we operate.

Are you for us pulling out? If so paint me a picture of the coming years with our pullout. How do you see Afghanistan? How do we insure it remains a nuetralized threat to us? I agree people would rather bury their head in the sand than understand what is being attempted. American's like quick and easy wars these days. They don't want to be subject to how brutal it can be and the long hard slog that it has often been.

You tell me how to keep Afghanistan from turning back into a haven for AQ and other groups without the current way and I'll happily debate it and probably even come to agree.

[DonDadda59]

I'm sure there are plenty of civilians who if they had the choice of Taliban rule or American rule (figurehead) would go w/ the former. And I'm also sure that these same civilians join the militias, offer them support (smuggling weapons, financial, etc). So it's not exactly like it's the Taliban against the world, especially since U.S. airstrikes killing civilians isn't going to turn the sentiment tide to our side. Afghans have historically been autonomous people and the threat of a centralized FOREIGN-conceived government is not in line with the tribal tradition of the land.

I'm not in favor of anything- pull out or otherwise. It's just that it seems like an inevitability that without a sound strategy, attainable and clear objectives, moral support amongst the troops and populace, escalating costs amidst a financial crisis- all of these factors are not conducive to long, drawn-out, bloody occupation.

This is a quagmire with a capital Q. I really don't see how we 'win' anything by prolonged engagement.

[Boogaloo]

I disagree and the years that followed prove it out. We went in under the irrational fear that communism would sweep through all of Asia and elsewhere if we didn't provide a check to it. The last 50 plus years has born out that communism is its own check as it often devours from within and collapses. We would have never won the war in the end as we would have had to expand the war into the neghboring countries in which the enemy often resupplied or retreated into. It wasn't worth that, not to mention the war strategy we used to fight the guerrilla's in itself would have just created more enemies and kept the local populaces either neutral or giving aid to the enemy. Strategically I just can't see how the Vietnam war was in our long term interest.

Hindsight being 20/20, western countries did not know the communist system was bound to collapse. during the 50s and 60s heck right up to the 80s Soviet ideology was a real threat.

Altho the "Domino Theory" is now proven to be a fallicy, but back then Soviet, China, and Cuba was considered a major threat.

[Boogaloo]

nope. What makes you a brainwashed bush hugger is you asking that stupid questions and being all ignorant of what is actually happening with the enemy. I hope you get shipped to afghanistan so some suicide bomber can make you his meat kabob. Retarded dumb****s like yourself should all be sent away to war.

you still hear dumb asss?
And how would you know what is happening with the enemy? Are you directly talking to them? Still waiting for your sources.

[Boogaloo]

The same EXACT thing could be said about Afghanistan. The parallels are really uncanny, but clearly we haven't learned a damn thing.

Actually there is more effort in winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan. ROEs show that.

But I agree with you the problem with Afghanistan like I mentioned before is that the people there are more tribal. And you are right this will turn into a quagmire as long as the insurgency (Taliban, drug lords, common criminals, jihadist) have a safe haven to go to Pakistan. You dont pursue these guys across the border they gonna keep coming for ever.

The only way the US can succeed, is by forming a strong National army, and hope that the Afghans can take care of the incursions themselves, which will never end as long as there is a border these guys can run to when things get hot.

[PejaNowitzki]

:applause:


Where are all the partisan anti-war retards that were bashing Bush but now fail to go after Obama? Reducing forces in Iraq and increasing them in Afghanistan is like going directly from the frying pan into the flame. We have no reason to remain in either country. The threat of extremist Islam is way overplayed and if that were really the case, why not go into countries like Somalia where militant Islam is absolutely rampant?

All that will happen is that we are sending more and more troops into a meat grinder on far less advantageous and more difficult terrain.

http://www.stewwebb.com/bush_obama_10thcousins.jpg

[rufuspaul]

I disagree. 60 minutes can still bring it. You should try to discuss what he is saying instead of trying to turn the thread.

60 minutes is as full of sh*t as Fox News and the rest of them. I'm not trying to turn the thread. I was actually going to agree with your earlier point. Ass.

[Rasheed1]

The title is perfect....

there will always be excuses for more wars as long as Americans are willing to buy them... Fear is a powerful motivator and the democrats & republicans have been using alot of fear against the public...

[DonDadda59]

The instincts never fail...


THE top US military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the US-led NATO coalition risks losing the war unless there are fundamental changes in military strategy, including the addition of at least 10,000 more American troops.

As Kevin Rudd yesterday all but ruled out any further military contribution from Australia, General Stanley McChrystal said the situation in Afghanistan was serious and the next 12 months would be decisive.

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term, while Afghan security capacity matures, risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," General McChrystal said in a bleak review of progress in Afghanistan sent to the Pentagon three weeks ago and leaked to The Washington Post yesterday.

"We must do things dramatically differently - even uncomfortably differently - to change how we operate, and also how we think.

"Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.

"In the struggle to gain the support of the people, every action we take must enable this effort."

The new counter-insurgency approach, focused on protecting the local Afghan population, could dictate the need for up

to 45,000 more US troops, according to The New York Times. Over the past few months, the Taliban have strengthened their position, pushing further into the country's south and east despite an increase in US troops that will reach 68,000 by the end of this year, after President Barack Obama approved an extra 21,000 since taking office.

[IcanzIIravor]

The instincts never fail...

It's going to take more than the additional troops though. The Afghan government is extremely corrupt and everyone knows it. With a weak government known for rampant corruption it is just one more reason for most people to sit on the sideline.

[DonDadda59]

It's going to take more than the additional troops though. The Afghan government is extremely corrupt and everyone knows it. With a weak government known for rampant corruption it is just one more reason for most people to sit on the sideline.

Exactly, doesn't seem like the top brass and government (both US and Afghan puppet) have any viable strategic paradigm shifts in store, just send in more troops to the slaughter to chase guerrilla fighters through the hills and mountains for a few more years.

[IcanzIIravor]

Exactly, doesn't seem like the top brass and government (both US and Afghan puppet) have any viable strategic paradigm shifts in store, just send in more troops to the slaughter to chase guerrilla fighters through the hills and mountains for a few more years.

I'm thinking something must be in the works outside of the troops. The biggest mistake being made right now is propping up Karzai's corrupt government and allowing the warlord's to retain the amount of power they still have. Their was massive voter fraud in the election and it is pretty clear Karzai has been corrupted by the power given him and is far changed from the guy he used to be if he ever was that guy.

[DonDadda59]

I'm thinking something must be in the works outside of the troops. The biggest mistake being made right now is propping up Karzai's corrupt government and allowing the warlord's to retain the amount of power they still have. Their was massive voter fraud in the election and it is pretty clear Karzai has been corrupted by the power given him and is far changed from the guy he used to be if he ever was that guy.

Haha, yeah kind of hard to win the 'hearts and minds' of the people in the face of election fraud and other shady governmental dealings. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

[DonDadda59]

Sooooooo... basically we wasted lives, time, and insane resources all in order to replace Saddam with Al Qaeda in Iraq? :confusedshrug:


Inside Iraq: Two years after U.S. withdrawal, are things worse than ever?

Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- On a bitterly cold December morning in 2011, we watched as the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait, ending America's war in Iraq.

More than 100 vehicles were in that convoy, snaking its way across the desert and through the floodlit border crossing, leaving behind empty bases and memories of nearly 4,500 American lives that were lost.

Americans breathed a sigh of relief. Many Iraqis held their breath. War, they feared, was far from over for them, and time has borne out their fears. The death and violence never stopped -- it's just that the bombs and bullets faded from American minds and television screens once the pull-out was complete.

Two years later we're back in Iraq and things are in many ways worse for Iraqis than when the Americans left.

Driving in along what the U.S. military called "Route Irish" -- or the BIAP (Baghdad International Airport road) -- the stark concrete blast walls are now covered in murals, the median is grassed with palm trees and fountains. We were reminded this was done for the 2012 Arab League Summit in Baghdad, not for general "beautification."

Those of us who'd been to Baghdad on multiple assignments were struck by the ubiquitous security presence -- police checkpoints and posts and army units on duty in some places.

The traffic was always bad in Baghdad. Today, it's worse that we can remember.

Locals talk of almost becoming accustomed to the threat of not coming home at night because of some random car bomb.

READ MORE (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/world/meast/iraq-anbar-violence-holmes/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

U.S. war gains in Iraq now lost or threatened

A nation once seen as a great hope in the Middle East is unraveling, as al-Qaeda sinks its teeth in, and a bloodied America wonders what could have been.

When the last U.S. combat troops departed Iraq in December 2011, they left behind a defeated al-Qaeda and an Iraq where traditional rivals Sunni and Shiite Muslims were sharing power in the world's only Arab democracy.

Two years later, al-Qaeda has seized major cities where hundreds of U.S. troops died while fighting alongside their Iraqi brethren. The population once freed by the U.S.-Iraqi alliance has now watched those same jihadist insurgents return to command the streets and impose their will.

Indeed, Iraqis are threatened again by civil war over charges of treason and resistance to an authoritarian government. Many significant gains of the 8-year-long Iraq war in which more than 4,400 Americans died have been lost or are now threatened unless swift actions evict the insurgents.

"I fear it's only the beginning and much worse will evolve," says Fred Kagan, a military historian and former adviser to President George W. Bush and U.S. military commander David Petraeus. "And I believe it was avoidable."

READ MORE (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/12/many-iraq-war-gains-now-lost-or-threatened/4393439/)

Nothing. We learned absolutely nothing. Oh well, bring on the next one :banana:

[Akrazotile]

And by that, I mean the American Government.

I was watching 60 minutes earlier and they had a report on the war in Afghanistan and how it's escalating. More troops will be sent into the fray in the near future as more rebel fighters pour into the country from the Pakistani borders.

Now, we're dealing with two quagmires in this and our unfinished business in Iraq. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, or more recently- The Soviet's failures in Afghanistan, fighting the same people we are now? Chasing fundamentalist fighters, zealots who fear neither persecution nor death... in their territory, is always a disastrous move. Our soldiers are a professional body, volunteers who join for various reasons- job security, benefits, college tuition, etc and some out of a sense of duty. The enemy fights for his freedom and is guided by his stone-firm religious principles. It's like the scene from Godfather, Part II when Michael explains to Hyman Roth why he's apprehensive about investing money in Cuba during the revolution:

Michael: [about the unrest in Cuba] We saw a strange thing on our way here. Some rebels were being arrested, and instead of being arrested, one of them pulled the pin on a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, the soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.

This will be a conflict without end. How do you defeat an enemy that blends into his surroundings- a zealot guerilla warrior, that is willing to fight to the very last man?

Semi-Related Side Note: Prohibition should have taught legislators that outlawing drugs does nothing to stem the problem, just empowers criminals and makes them rich while draining federal and local resources in another aimless and perpetual 'war'.

/Rant


We borrow money for war. Those who lend it pay our politicians to keep running up a tab. The politicians, meanwhile, pay the broad base of the pyramid just enough in handouts and entitlements to keep them from ever engaging in any serious rebellion.

Politicians get rich, bankers get richer, slackers get fed... All at the expense of the tax paying middle class.

Do not delude yourself into believing that ANY political action has to do with anything other than money. Freedom, terror, democracy, jihad, these things are all used to keep the base divided and in perpetual debate amongst each other. The base poses no threat. It never has, it never will.


The calculated division of democrats and republicans amongst the masses is all for show, and frankly is quite ingenious. If you were to have a person from each party list all the talking points he's been trained to believe, the hypocrisy would be STAGGERING. Yet, each of them only thinks the other is being a hypocrite. Thus, the cycle continues. They fight each other, and don't pay attention to anything more important.


What's more amazing is that you could shout this at people from the rooftops, and it will not change. It is an incontrovertible rule of society. Sheep gonna sheep.

[knickballer]

^^
DD,
The men in charge, mostly the politicians connected to the MIC, know exactly they're doing. They knew A-stan and Iraq wars had no solutions and were pointless(lol @ weapons of mass destruction) wars that were going to drag and be costly. But for them it's profit.. The billions of dollars signed in contracts their company receives(Cough Haliburton?) to fix the shit they destroyed, the amount made in selling arms, the money made in supplying the trops, etc. It's a ****ing gold mine for these rich kunts.

It's all about creating instability.. The "arab spring", Libya, Syria, Iran(next), etc.. They want the crazy insurgents to seize power because in 10-20 years they're going to cash in their investments by bombing the shit out of the "terrorists" and then do the same shit with their contracts.

The only reason there is still some support is because the media constantly shoves down our throats terrorism and the glory of the US army from protecting us against some cavemen insurgents(lol). It's not like the US population would give a shit anyway.

All of the major conflicts we entered the past century have been created by a false flag.



PS, INB4 Kevin NYC posts quotes from Anderson Cooper why the Iraq war was a success since cell phone usage has increased by 20% or some other stupid stat.

[knickballer]

We borrow money for war. Those who lend it pay our politicians to keep running up a tab. The politicians, meanwhile, pay the broad base of the pyramid just enough in handouts and entitlements to keep them from ever engaging in any serious rebellion.

Politicians get rich, bankers get richer, slackers get fed... All at the expense of the tax paying middle class.

Do not delude yourself into believing that ANY political action has to do with anything other than money. Freedom, terror, democracy, jihad, these things are all used to keep the base divided and in perpetual debate amongst each other. The base poses no threat. It never has, it never will.


The calculated division of democrats and republicans amongst the masses is all for show, and frankly is quite ingenious. If you were to have a person from each party list all the talking points he's been trained to believe, the hypocrisy would be STAGGERING. Yet, each of them only thinks the other is being a hypocrite. Thus, the cycle continues. They fight each other, and don't pay attention to anything more important.


What's more amazing is that you could shout this at people from the rooftops, and it will not change. It is an incontrovertible rule of society. Sheep gonna sheep.

:cheers: :cheers:
Amen.

Try telling this to people and you'll be labeled a conspiratist, nutjob, terrorist and anti-american.

[Akrazotile]

Why do you think the debate about healthcare was presented in the scope of "should we federalize healthcare, or should we not have healthcare?"

Even if you believe in "free" healthcare, the natural solution is to have states manage their own programs. Not only does it make it more manageable, but it creates competition amongst states to provide good plans for its citizens.

Of course, politicians don't want states rights. There is less power in small, individual factions. They want centralized control. Obamacare just centralizes more money and power.

Thus, the debate presented on the television is that Democrats want federalized healthcare, and Republicans don't believe the government should control healthcare. Obamacare was a foregone conclusion, because the interests who wanted it, paid for it. The way it was presented was the real coup. Nobody even considered "Hey, maybe it's time we improved healthcare, but did it on a state-by-state basis."

The same people who control banks control the media. Again, the law with this stuff is that if you're able to grasp it, you can't explain it to the masses. They're not competent enough to understand the truth, nor secure enough to face it. Freedom is anarchy. Imagine if everyone led themselves and nobody followed? Humans aren't designed that way. The public is controlled, and rather easily. Sure, some of us here and there can understand it, but there's nothing we can do about it.

[Rodmantheman]

Holy **** you people are stupid.

What about you?

[Spell&Grammer]

you still hear dumb asss?
And how would you know what is happening with the enemy? Are you directly talking to them? Still waiting for your sources.

*you're

-Spell&Grammer

[Myth]

*you're

-Spell&Grammer


So much wrong in his post and you change that :oldlol:

[Akrazotile]

*you're

-Spell&Grammer


Multiple you're sauces.

[Akrazotile]

Humanity is based on evolution. In evolution, cream rises to the top. The toughest in the pack move to the front.

The people at the top are there for a reason. It didn't happen by chance. They are hard working, competitive, ambitious, and usually ruthless. Politicians don't claw their way to the top so they can fight YOUR battles against banks and doctors and television stations. They work WITH these groups to eat off your plate.

Welcome to life everybody.

[Out_In_Utah]

*you're

-Spell&Grammer

Future repped. :roll:

[-p.tiddy-]

Wow, spell and grammAr

Unreal that his name is misspelled... All sorts of FAIL

[Big_Dogg]

Love how so many of you patriotic Americans say you were going into Iraq and Afghanistan to go after AQ, what an absolute bunch of blind sheep you are, "**** yeah, Murica, we got the biggest guns and the best military and we **** shit up, we'll kill all you fricken AQ Arabs".

Wake the hell up, your soldiers are dying to make other people rich, nothing more, all the so called wars you are in are for nothing more than money and control of oil, war is big profitable business, all your taxpayer dollars are being spent on this crap instead of providing you and your fellow counrtymen with a better life and better services for you all.

You're all puppets and your strings are pulled far to easily, you lap it all up and ask for seconds, your ignorance is amazing and only exceeded by your blind patriotism.

[Akrazotile]

Love how so many of you patriotic Americans say you were going into Iraq and Afghanistan to go after AQ, what an absolute bunch of blind sheep you are, "**** yeah, Murica, we got the biggest guns and the best military and we **** shit up, we'll kill all you fricken AQ Arabs".

Wake the hell up, your soldiers are dying to make other people rich, nothing more, all the so called wars you are in are for nothing more than money and control of oil, war is big profitable business, all your taxpayer dollars are being spent on this crap instead of providing you and your fellow counrtymen with a better life and better services for you all.

You're all puppets and your strings are pulled far to easily, you lap it all up and ask for seconds, your ignorance is amazing and only exceeded by your blind patriotism.


Like 5 people already just said that bro.

[Big_Dogg]

I know, but as the title says, Americans never learn, so one more time won't hurt

[Akrazotile]

I know, but as the title says, Americans never learn, so one more time won't hurt


Touch

[Akrazotile]

GOAT country by far



Well that part's a given.

[Akrazotile]

:cheers:

:djparty

[AI Thornton]

I know, but as the title says, Americans never learn, so one more time won't hurt

By that thought process, one more time didn't help either.

[MadeFromDust]

What's there to learn? It's better to fight the jeehad scum where they are than allow them to escape the third world.

[Balla_Status]

Americans never learn that they keep voting for morons in office that allow this to happen.

The war for oil shit is old though...there's only 1-2 AMERICAN oil companies in Iraq and all that shit is going to Europe/India/China.

[East_Stone_Ya]

What's there to learn? It's better to fight the jeehad scum where they are than allow them to escape the third world.

jeehad? :biggums:

[I<3NBA]

So much wrong in his post and you change that :oldlol:
you don't get his gimmick do you?

the original gimmick was Spell&Grammar

his is Spell&Grammer

figure it out.

[Myth]

you don't get his gimmick do you?

the original gimmick was Spell&Grammar

his is Spell&Grammer

figure it out.

I got it, that is why I found it so funny.

[knickballer]

Love how so many of you patriotic Americans say you were going into Iraq and Afghanistan to go after AQ, what an absolute bunch of blind sheep you are, "**** yeah, Murica, we got the biggest guns and the best military and we **** shit up, we'll kill all you fricken AQ Arabs".

Wake the hell up, your soldiers are dying to make other people rich, nothing more, all the so called wars you are in are for nothing more than money and control of oil, war is big profitable business, all your taxpayer dollars are being spent on this crap instead of providing you and your fellow counrtymen with a better life and better services for you all.

You're all puppets and your strings are pulled far to easily, you lap it all up and ask for seconds, your ignorance is amazing and only exceeded by your blind patriotism.


The "peace keeping" mission has resorted to American soldiers protecting the poppy fields in A-stan... I'm wondering who's making a killing off that shit? Definitely aren't those poor soldiers who don't know wtf they are doing guarding it....

[Akrazotile]

The "peace keeping" mission has resorted to American soldiers protecting the poppy fields in A-stan... I'm wondering who's making a killing off that shit? Definitely aren't those poor soldiers who don't know wtf they are doing guarding it....


That's ok doe we can debate gay people having marriage and if the government should give poor people free car wash vouchers in addition to food and healthcare and money for being unemployed. 99% DESERVE TO WASHES THEIR CARSS!

Also if you dont have car then ur voucher is good for free car. 99% DESERVE FOR GOVERNMENT TO BUY CARS

[Axe]

A new decade and it's still the same thing all over. :sleeping

Even worse, the pandemic has exposed those who are truly incompetent.

[Stanley Kobrick]

A new decade and it's still the same thing all over. :sleeping

Even worse, the pandemic has exposed those who are truly incompetent.
Yes troops in afghanistans

No dups in Ishfamsnstans

[Axe]

Yes troops in afghanistans

No dups in Ishfamsnstans
Ah well played :cheers:

[Nanners]

The "peace keeping" mission has resorted to American soldiers protecting the poppy fields in A-stan... I'm wondering who's making a killing off that shit? Definitely aren't those poor soldiers who don't know wtf they are doing guarding it....

Half of the profits end up going to pharma companies that make "legal" opiates, the other half of the money winds up getting used to fund all of the CIA operations that cant get taxpayer funding