wkmac
Well-Known Member
We could ask the Russians or the British for the map coordinates!
Or we could just Mapquest it!
Afghanistan war
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
We could ask the Russians or the British for the map coordinates!
Or we could just Mapquest it!
Ill take it that you dont want to get pinned down on an answer, because you know it will always zero back onto GW BUSH's failure to lead in afghanistan.
So far, Afghanistan has been a huge waste of time.
This last election was chockfull of corruption, corruption we support in order to keep President Karzai in office.
Our men have fought valiantly in both wars, yet the goal will always elude their deaths.
The problem with answering the question asked begins and ends with politics. The right wing has to find a way to turn the "war on terror" they sold to those in this country into a "liberal" failure of leadership.
Bush had control of the white house, the republicans had control of congress and all the purse strings, yet they failed to have a plan for success in either war.
Bomb,bomb,bomb, shock and awe, blah blah blah......7 years later, its worse than ever. Now, a new president , a new congress has to decide to fight to save "political face" or cut bait.
Bill Orielly, who I will never accuse of being intelligent said the other night that staying in afghanistan and fighting until an eventual win will make us "look" like we won, vs leaving and letting the "terrrorists" think they "won" is better for america.
This is why we shouldnt start wars we cant end. His statement is a purely political one. He could care less how many soldiers are killed, or how much red ink is booked, as long as it appears like we won, he's all for it.
So AV8, answer the question, youve been put in charge, you are the "pretend" commander in chief, HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THERE?
Now that youve been promoted, stop the line dance, put down the american flag, stop cleaning your gun and answer the question.
You decide whether you want a political end, or a military end, the choice is all yours, we are all listening.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
The rules murdering our troops
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009
Posted: 12:57 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.
Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.
Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.
And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).
The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?
A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.
As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.
The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009
Posted: 12:57 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.
In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.
Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:
* Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.
* If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.
These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)
The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.
And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.
So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.
We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.
Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?
It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?
This week's rumblings from the White House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.
Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.
Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.
And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."
The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).
The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?
A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.
As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.
The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.
If our goal is nation building, we simply had to cut down on the amount of civilian casualties we were causing, and that's impossible to do without using more restrictive ROE's that put the guys on the ground more at risk. Blaming Obama and code pink is a little over the top, my impression is that he's relying primarily on advice from Petraeus, who actually wrote the counterinsurgency manual that this guy is badmouthing. He also says that the purpose of going to war is to win, but following what seems to be a trend in this thread he fails to define what exactly we are trying to win. Personally I think nation building is a fool's errand, but no one's asking me.
ups1990
Well-Known Member
I saw a poll, which said that most Americans are against a build up of troops. If this administration is for ending the Afghan war, then lets bring the solders back. It's crystal clear, Obama and Congress believe we can talk our way or give a speech our way out of turmoil.
Perhaps, now I'm just saying perhaps we can have the president take an IPOD of Obama's favorite songs and give it to the insurgents. Maybe we can have a concert with Kanye West, along with left-wing artist and Hollywood actors, hold hands and make this go away.
If you are perceived as weak, people will not take you seriously.
Athletes that get into trouble point to the crowd that was around them as the problem. This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs
Perhaps, now I'm just saying perhaps we can have the president take an IPOD of Obama's favorite songs and give it to the insurgents. Maybe we can have a concert with Kanye West, along with left-wing artist and Hollywood actors, hold hands and make this go away.
If you are perceived as weak, people will not take you seriously.
Athletes that get into trouble point to the crowd that was around them as the problem. This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs
UPS1999,
BLAH BLAH BLAH...right wing rhetoric without saying anything.
This is the problem with you right wingers. You have nothing but rediculous criticisms and offer nothing in the alternative.
Terrific, you offered this gem "This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs"
Really? He has three of the top advisors that were guiding President maroon for the last few years.. What now? Were they giving Bush bad advice?
Before you post something really rediculous 1999, why not try and really educate yourself on these wars without simply repeating some lame claim from FAUX news.
Since you have pointed out that you believe he is getting bad advice on both domestic and foreign affairs, why not show us what you mean?
Where in Afghanistan is he getting bad advice and from WHO? Name them and the advice they gave.
The real problem with wars that start without a plan for ending them 1999, is that they always end up a political war. The democrats would gladly like to end this occupation (afghanistan) and save a trillion dollars, on the other hand, the republicans would rather spend a trillion dollars and put on rallys and scare americans with "terrorists" and "we could be attacked if we leave"....
This type of rhetoric and scare tactic works on the weak. Bush led us into Afghainstan with the idea of getting Osama Bin Laden. FAIL.
8 years later, we are no closer to Osama Bin Laden than we are getting an answer from AV8 on Afghanistan.
You call Obama a coward, who would rather talk then fight, or maybe you dont understand he realizes that useless soldiers deaths are not worth the effort?
This is not a country of democracy, with a goverment and uniformed soldiers. Its a tribal country, with gangs, villages and tribal leaders who's only income is that of the drug trade.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
History repeats itself: Afghanistan President Karzai portraying himself as the only candidate willing to stand up to the dictates of U.S.
From The New York Times:
A little over 24 hours after the polls closed, President Obama stepped out on the White House South Lawn last week to pronounce the Afghanistan presidential elections something of a success.
But now, as reports mount of widespread fraud in the balloting, including allegations that supporters of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, illegally stuffed ballot boxes in the south and ripped up ballots cast for his opponents, Mr. Obama’s early praise may soon come back to haunt him.
[Obama administration] officials have made no secret of their growing disenchantment with Mr. Karzai, who is viewed by the West as having so compromised himself to try to get elected — including striking deals with accused drug dealers and warlords for political gain — that he will be a hindrance to international efforts to get the country on track after the election.
As long as Karzai is working with the drug dealers in his country in order to stay in power, it doesnt matter what we do. You must first understand the complexities of the drug trade in Afghanistan to understand why we cant win this war.
In order to win a war, you must stop the ability to wage war. This costs money. As long as millions of dollars are exchanging hands daily in tribal villages, countries will continue to arm them.
Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia sell arms to the taliban. When you can stop this, then youll have your victory. Until then, you will just get your teenage neighbor killed with your rhetoric.
Next time, say something of real value that lends itself to an intelligent debate. Save the right wing whacko "slogans" for faux news.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So AV8, answer the question, youve been put in charge, you are the "pretend" commander in chief, HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THERE?
I see we get the predictable babble from you blah, blah, right wing, blah, blah, O Reilly. You still did not answer my question.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Now wait a minute! True you aren't the scumbag-n.....I mean commander-n-chief but you are running for Congress, got elected and was a political sensation so let's think positive (maybe for you
And to be fair, if you believe we are still at war fighting a gov't and it's army, same question, what do you need and what should we be doing?
Looking forward to reading your thoughts either way!
I do not think we are still at war fighting a government and it's army.
If I woke up and found myself in the position of President. Well I do not want to nation build but I do recognize that we have a responsibility to Afghanistan since we invaded them and this goes for all those that aided us in the invasion as they share in this responsibility.
First and most importantly is to help protect the civilian population. In a very public way I would fire my secretary of state. She promised she could, just based on her name and things she had done in the past, cause other people to be nice. Since other countries are still importing weapons into Afghanistan she had her chance and is now terminated. We need the state department to work with other nations to help stop this flow of weapons. We also need the state department to help advise the new government on things like setting up a legal system so I would also terminate all those employees that have refused to go when it was their turn. They would need aid in building power plants, water plants, and roads all of which take time and we are currently doing. I would try and find a way to help them develop a trade other than the drug trade.
Now we have to train an army and focus on keeping the major centers of populations as safe as possible until we can "turn" over their security to local police. I would have to draw on my experience in Iraq since this is all I have to go on. In the meantime you can constantly push out to new areas with your freshly trained military. I would avoid the take and hold principal since I do not want any permanent bases in this country and this is difficult terrain to reinforce.
We must maintain air dominance. Any sign of air defense by the enemy must be dealt with.
There are some electronic warfare measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.
There are some SOF measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.
I would maintain a degree of flexibility and not commit to any type of false public time line. These types of things take time. I believe a withdrawal can eventually happen. I also believe we can do it in a way that would not sacrifice the people of Afghanistan.
No goal can possibly be to eliminate all taliban but there had to be a response for the attacks on our Country.
Most of this is nothing new aside from my desire to not maintain any permanent base or escalate the violence.
Oh if you read the other thread about running for public you know I cannot the Repubs will not allow it and you have to have their permission to get on the ballot.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response and sharing your thoughts!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
If you woke up in the morning and were President what would you do?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Abolish the Constitution and send everyone in Washington home.
As one might say, I'd impeach myself and everyone else with me!
As for Afghanistan, I do believe it's a resource war (just as Iraq was and just as our 1990's Balkans adventures were) and I'd expose that fact to all. And I'd expose ALL the players as I also think some of the opposing players might not be true to their cause either.
I'd end our presense there and in Iraq and obviously to explain all of that would take a lot of time and space here and if you've read my posts over a wide variety of subjects and especially the links, it's obvious just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would mean nothing if that was all you did. Both are purely effects and I'd be more interested in root causes. Thus my first paragraph as in removing all power and means of power from those who use it for their own self interests and that self interest is a very wide net for sure.
Our sitting President spoke of change and the need for transparency and I couldn't agree more. I'd bring so much transparency to gov't that you could count the hairs between Uncle Sam's legs. Unlike the democrat and republican parties, I don't believe in noble lies!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
klein
Für Meno :)
Abolish the Constitution and send everyone in Washington home.
As one might say, I'd impeach myself and everyone else with me!
As for Afghanistan, I do believe it's a resource war (just as Iraq was and just as our 1990's Balkans adventures were) and I'd expose that fact to all. And I'd expose ALL the players as I also think some of the opposing players might not be true to their cause either.
I'd end our presense there and in Iraq and obviously to explain all of that would take a lot of time and space here and if you've read my posts over a wide variety of subjects and especially the links, it's obvious just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would mean nothing if that was all you did. Both are purely effects and I'd be more interested in root causes. Thus my first paragraph as in removing all power and means of power from those who use it for their own self interests and that self interest is a very wide net for sure.
Our sitting President spoke of change and the need for transparency and I couldn't agree more. I'd bring so much transparency to gov't that you could count the hairs between Uncle Sam's legs. Unlike the democrat and republican parties, I don't believe in noble lies!
There is a country on earth with no government.
It's called Somalia !
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Funny, I made no mention of effecting State or local gov't and yet you lacked critical thinking and assumed! I'm not surprised by your revelation either!
BTW: Somalia does have a gov't (A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.) see government but it may be that you and myself as well don't like how that gov't exerts itself as it's not what "WE" typically think gov't is.
Actually, strip away the noble lies and it's in truth more honest. Gov't has many ways into power but mostly it's done by one of 2 ways these days for the most part. First, there's the pure democracy route which can take many illusion forms. Saddam Huissein was said by some to be elected and therefore many thought democracy but yet he controlled who ran against him for the most part. Of course we decried this control as evil and yet we ignored the fact that in this country we have the same thing but we think ourselves better because we have it divided into 2 political parties that all but control the process. 3rd parties are allowed to some degree for the sake of illusion but the wall so high they have no real chance.
The 2nd way is by pure force whether that be some type of coup or other means of violent act. Taking this route also requires a maintaining of some level of violence until opposition forces are killed or assimulated. Somalia being a good example. Also it might serve you well to study a little about the region and how the CIA and other American interests have actually profitted and promoted the problems over there while telling the masses the noble lie! Just like now where we decry the violence and so-called "anarchy" in areas of Afghanistan and yet we held to the noble lie while we backed and funded same anarchy in the 1980's when Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation. Ah, the noble lie of promoting freedom and justice from the red imperial menace!
Government exerts it's will by either brute force, threat of brute force or the subtle lie in order to gain compliance and/or obedience.
We are conditioned to the subtle lie as politicians tell us one thing to gain our vote and then act differently once elected. That's the operation of being "civilized" or in the first world. In the 3rd world, the mechanism of carrying the lie lacks to feed the masses so brute force becomes the tool of choice. Same thing really except in the first world being on the losing side your blood spilt tends to be green!
In the first world unlike the 3rd world, the warloads hide behind lobbyist and paid for politicians and use the cop and other enforcer of state sanction as the avenger of blood and protection control. The only difference between ourselves and the Somilians is our level of sophisications in hiding our own brutality of the blood of citizen slaves who dare stand up and are then bled dry for public viewing along our own Appian Way!
I often find it musing that the mircoscopic minority of folks who hold a view like or similar to mine when we voice it are so fast to raise objections from the overwhelming galactic size masses of those who in various beliefs of State would strongly disagree. As for mass appeal, it's almost as if I were saying that on the farside of the universe a comet were about to slam into a planet and yet you act as if it's about to hit here. Wonder where the fear comes from?
Relax, have a beer, kick back. You know you can easily pass me off as just pure hyperbole, troll, lunatic, BC idiot, etc. etc. What I say will have no impact at all!
And Klein, learn how definitions work and what people are actually advocating in the first place! Amazing what one can learn from etymology and to stop fearing as well! Did we ever consider if we look past the idea and concept of týrannos that something else even potentially better might emerge?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
.
I'd end our presense there
What I thought but how? Would you try to keep our men and women as safe as possible while doing that? Do you land 1000 aircraft at once and board in mass? Would you have any regard for the safety of the people of Afghanistan?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
As far as I'm concerned those men and women are on their own!
If you and others have stopped bouncing off the wall now .........
Obviously it would be a protected withdrawal and it would require some amount of time for an orderly process. No I don't think 18 months either. How long and how? Give me full access to all details and force resources over there and I can give you a more precise answer bit I am thinking months and less than a year if you want specific. If it can be done safely and orderly in weeks, so much the better. You wanna stay, I wanna go. Opinions vary.
OEF from my understanding has about 29k US Troops in the eastern and southern part of the country and ISAF under NATO in and around Kabul has about the same number of US Troops assigned to a large NATO force. Allowing a protection of withdrawal and just knowing what little I do know of actual on ground facts and logisitics, I'd first withdraw all operations into Pakaistan and withdraw the OEF forces back to Kabul area for re-deployment home. Air defense and predator drones would give air cover of such operations too.
Once OEF forces were out, then I'd begin withdrawal of our ISAF forces assigned to NATO. NATO could stay if it liked but we're out. I'd then withdraw from NATO and close all global military bases with a similar like process. We're done being global policeman and also the world source of welfare payments. As for the contractors working for various bussinesses and corporations over there? They should contract their contractor HR department. They are not my problem and that comment is no joke!
I found it ironic you wanted to extend infrastructure and other support welfare (jobs program) for Afghanistan (I oppose obviously) while opposing the likes of such or anything remote to it here at home. Interesting and telling all at the same time!
They have farmers over there growing cucumbers until we blow them up and their trucks loaded with cucumbers claiming they were some type of explosive devices. Wonder what we'd say if those were cops going into an inner city mowing down innocent people as the cops claimed they we a bunch of gangbangers? Wonder what the rest of the innocent folks living in the area would think not only of the cops but the rest of us outside the area who championed the cops going in in the name of the better good!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I feel we are bound by law. So yes it should be telling.
What if Pakistan says no to you or President Obama would you invade them anyway? Where do you plan to fly those drones from?
I have an honest curiosity since I have many libertarian friends and they sort of share your position in a way and obviously I part ways with them but they just get angry and never explain their position. I can understand how they can say they would have never gone to Afghanistan but that does not change the fact that we are there. Anyhow not trying to attack your opinion just trying to understand it.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Sorry if you misunderstood but I'd stop all operations into Pakistan not continue or increase them. Drones or other means of air cover would be used as overhead protection only of withdrawing forces. I'd withdraw all in-country operations back to the Kabul area and then withdraw all forces. I know this can't happen in 24 hours because of pure scale but all offensive operations would stop immediately. Hope that statement is more clear. Sorry for the mix up.
I can't speak for your libertarian friends because the word libertatian itself has no hard fast dogmatic meaning. There are pro war libertarians just as there are anti war, pro life and pro choice libertarians and even the issue of drugs and postitution is a mixed bag among many issues and contary to popular belief. There are leftist libertatians and even socialist libertarians.
I use the term anarchist and anarchy to assign myself to the more radical element of libertarianism who believes in the concept of "no ruler" whereas many libertarians in similar fashion to yourself in some areas are what some call "minarchists" who adopt the concept of "no ruler" only in limited areas.
I also adopt the concept of the non aggression axiom and you can google that so I won't belabor that point. Your friends "may?" adopt this principle or some aspect of it but again, you'll have to ask them. Why not ask them what they have read or are reading that helped them develop their POV.
Just a side note in case this comes up in thought. What about the nuclear threat in Pakistan? This is exactly why I've been posting all this stuff about Sibel Edmonds. When you start looking past the spin story of gov't and looking not only deeper but across a much longer span of time and how things went on say like in the 1980's for example with Charlie Wilson, you begin to realize that a lot of nefarious characters did a lot of dirty deeds to benefit themselves and still do to this day. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran did not start in 1979', 1990' or 2001'. This has all been going on for well more than a century and the only way to even get a slight hint is to study some of that history.
jmo.
Just on another side note. This afternoon I watched an interview with Rory Stewart concerning Afghanistan on Bill Moyers' Journal. Unlike me and more aligned with you, he thinks we should stay in Afghanistan and he himself is a former soldier. But he also brings up some valid points about Afghanistan and the idea of there being some type of Jeffersonian democracy in place anytime soon in that country. I think some of his points are very healthy for us to discuss publically in the public space and realize what we are up against.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
That is what I was asking about. It looked like you just wanted to move military forces into another Country. That is how I mistook that as an invasion of another nation.
For the other part I wanna go, you wanna go we just disagree on how to make that happen.
