Jump to content

"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."


Recommended Posts

And still you seem to look at the world through a US centric (or at least Western centric) view.

Why do you name the clash to liberate Kuwait as “the First Gulf War”?

Have you forgotten the little disagreement between Iran and Iraq that went for the best part of ten years ?!

Surely we should be saying:

First Gulf War = Iran Vs Iraq

Second Gulf War = Coalition Vs Iraq

Third Gulf War = Smaller Coalition Vs Iraq

Funny how stuff doesn’t seem to have happened as far as the US is concerned if they weren’t involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ah, I come back to see this turned into somewhat of a flame war. Sorry. A few points though.

1. The US tries harder, by far, than any other country in the history of the planet, to hold ALL casualties down, ours as well as enemy.

2. Often we lose troops because of concern for innocents. My unit lost a handful, all to avoid killing innocents, who quite obviously were not 100% innocent, as they were providing places for the enemy to engage us.

3. As someone above pointed out, Europe has not needed our help in about 65 years, so of course, the countries that did, are mostly not Caucasian.

3. Gibson is accurate. There was a war before we went there. There was also Saddams gas attacks on his own people in the north. This shows that a) these people were killing each other long before we were there, and B) It explains why we are viewed by 85% of the population still as liberators. I am certain that if it was a European who decided to gas the Netherlands, Elmaar, you would be begging for American help, just as your ancestors did 65 years ago. Germany certainly was not doing anything against the USA, and even tried very hard to keep the US out of the war.

4. Our Army is made up of professionals who do not sit around getting high all day, so no thank you on the smoke

Sorry for the rant, but I too just would like this forum to be about the game, not about a bunch of uninformed political %%^

thanks.

[ March 22, 2008, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MD82:

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainer.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

I agree. IMHO, my tax dollars being spent wisely. Our men & women in the service are priceless.

On another note; I'm working with some of the REAL Rangers from "Black Hawk Down" fame on two websites. They will be set up to aid ALL U.S. VETS, from ALL WARS. They are about done with the non-profit paperwork & meetings with the right important people. Just asking the Mods & owners, can I post those links when they are ready? Not selling anything at all, just setting up aid & networking to our heroes. The guys said something about leg units being invited too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MD82:

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainier.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

I agree. IMHO, my tax dollars being spent wisely. Our men & women in the service are priceless.

On another note; I'm working with some of the REAL Rangers from "Black Hawk Down" fame on two websites. They will be set up to aid ALL U.S. VETS, from ALL WARS. They are about done with the non-profit paperwork & meetings with the right important people. Just asking the Mods & owners, can I post those links when they are ready? Not selling anything at all, just setting up aid & networking to our heroes. The guys said something about leg units being invited too... </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a narrow-minded, blinkered definition of "victory" which has little to do with war. Success in tactical action without operational or strategic effect is worthless. It's even worse than worthless, as sometimes decision-makers can be deluded into thinking the war is going well, just because their side happens to be on the side winning a bunch of dinky pointless firefights.

That way of looking at things is also myopic. After all, if the high-tech side gets several soldiers killed in a roadside bombing, the high tech side lost that engagement.

No fair saying "we're winning because we win all the firefights", when at the same time you have soldiers dying and being maimed in bomb ambushes, and all the opposition loses is some wires, a bit of explosive, and worst case some ignorant fanatic willing to commit suicide for the insurgency.

What you're really saying is "Every time we get to fight the way that we want to, and only the way we want to, we win. The other stuff doesn't count. " That ain't an attitude I would expect to see in a true professional soldier.

A mantra of the US military, for decades, has been that in Vietnam "we never lost a battle." That may be so, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, the US also lost the war. Since it is possible to lose a war while winning all the battles, an intelligence decision-maker looks further than the doings of platoons and companies, when he decides on strategies to win a war.

Military success, in the classical definition - i.e. as per Clauswitz - is when military action allows one side to impose its political will on its opponents.

Which leads me back to my earlier question. Where, perchance, is evidence of military victory in Afghanistan? I see outrageously expensive militaries tromping about a region that has never been subjugated since the 13th century, and even then it was the Mongols who managed it by wiping entire towns off the map, so as to intimidate the survivors. Since that strategy is unavailable to NATO and its allies, I am just fascinated by your assertion the region is an example of NATO military success.

Not flame. Just questioning your arguement.

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

As to your post, you misunderstood mine. I did not say nothing is worth a soldier's life, what I said was that in a choice between the two,money or soldiers, I would spend the money, sadly, war is not always going to let you choose.

As to mine,, we have not lost a single engagement in Afghanistan, and the relative stability there compared to before we were there is a bonus to the civilian population that was in the middle of a long civil war before our arrival. Politicians, ours as well as the Iraqi and Afghan, have really not done their end of the job as well as I personally would have liked to see.

By militarily won, what I mean is that in every situation where there is a firefight, the tangos retreat with usually heavy losses. I personally do not think that militarily won is enough though, but it is all that we can do.

The overwhelming vast majority of civilians in both countries are glad we are there, but are becoming impatient with the political situation, and the incessant, uninformed leadership in our congress which every week talks about withdrawing, has them on edge that if they support us now, what happens to them when we leave.

[ March 22, 2008, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

That is a narrow-minded, blinkered definition of "victory" which has little to do with war. Success in tactical action without operational or strategic effect are worthless. They're even worse than worthless, as sometimes decision-makers can be deluded into thinking the war is going well, just because their side happens to be on the side winning a bunk of dinky firefights.

That way of looking at things is also myopic. After all, if the high-tech side gets several soldiers killed in a roadside bombing, the high tech side lost that engagement. No fair saying "we're winning because we win all the firefights", when at the same time you have soldiers dying and being maimed in bomb ambushes.

A mantra of the US military, for decades, has been that in Vietnam "we never lost a battle." That may be so, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, the US also lost the war. Since it is possible to lose a war while winning all the battles, an intelligence decision-maker looks further than the doings of platoons and companies, when he decides on strategies to win a war.

Military success, in the classical definition - i.e. as per Clauswitz - is when military action allows one side to impose its political will on its opponents.

Which leads me back to my earlier question. Where, perchance, is evidence of military victory in Afghanistan? I see outrageously expensive militaries tromping about a region that has never been subjugated since the 13th century, and even then it was the Mongols who managed it by wiping entire towns off the map, so as to intimidate the survivors. Since that strategy is unavailable to NATO and its allies, I am just fascinated by your assertion the region is an example of NATO military success.

Not flame. Just questioning your arguement.

..

[/QB]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, you're getting down to specifics.

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

[QB] Ah, I come back to see this turned into somewhat of a flame war. Sorry. A few points though.

1. The US tries harder, by far, than any other country in the history of the planet, to hold ALL casualties down, ours as well as enemy.

False assumption. The country that doesn't send its soldiers to fight, is the one that holds down civilian casualties the best. The Icelanders and the Irish, for instance, are doing a terrific job of keeping down civilian casualties in Iraq.

Remember, in Iraq alone the estimates of civilian casualties stemming from US invasion range from 100,000 to 500,000 men, women, and children.

It's all very nice that the US military says it tries to avoid plunking a laser-guided munition on innocents, but if the US invasion itself unleased sectarian and ethnic violence on a massive scale (I call tens of thousands of dead "massive", YMMV) it is not so easy to argue, as you do, that the US military avoids civilian deaths.

2. Often we lose troops because of concern for innocents. My unit lost a handful, all to avoid killing innocents, who quite obviously were not 100% innocent, as they were providing places for the enemy to engage us.

I would wonder then, why it is that the opinion of what appears to be a substantial majority of the civilians your unit is supposedly protecting, is that your unit is part of a foreign occupying force, and that the best thing for their country would be for you and your buddies to go home immediately.

As to innocence and guilt, it is their country after all. Surely they have the right to decide what is is patriotism, in their own country. If they think you are foreign invaders, well, as far as they are concerned you are. It is up to you and your buddies to convince them otherwise. If you have not, and there is an insurgency, you are failing.

3. As someone above pointed out, Europe has not needed our help in about 65 years, so of course, the countries that did, are mostly not Caucasian.

3. Gibson is accurate. There was a war before we went there. There was also Saddams gas attacks on his own people in the north. This shows that a) these people were killing each other long before we were there, and B) It explains why we are viewed by 85% of the population still as liberators.

I question the 85 per cent number. What are your grounds for this opinion? I'd be glad to cite surveys contradicting your claim.

I am certain that if it was a European who decided to gas the Netherlands, Elmaar, you would be begging for American help, just as your ancestors did 65 years ago. Germany certainly was not doing anything against the USA, and even tried very hard to keep the US out of the war.
I would say your arguements here are weak. The historical record makes clear, Dutch did not "beg" for American help. Some of them collaborated, and far more of them resisted, most passively, a few actively. What else would you expect a country the size of the Netherlands to do, if it was invaded by a country the size of Hitler's Germany?

And many Dutchman would certainly ask, if the US population was so dedicated to promoting freedom of West Europe, why didn't the US declare war on Germany the moment Germany invaded France and the Low countries? Why condemn millions of Europeans, including the Dutch that you are arguing the US morally was impelled to protect, to years of subjugation by one of the most vicious dictators in history?

Don't forget, Germany declared war on the US.

4. Our Army is made up of professionals who do not sit around getting high all day, so no thank you on the smoke

Sorry for the rant, but I too just would like this forum to be about the game, not about a bunch of uninformed political %%^

thanks.

Sorry bub, you started it with your allegations, among others, that the US military is an essentially altruistic organization, and that it is succeeding in its present wars. Labeling responses to your claims "rants" doesn't invalidate the challenges. Defend what you wrote, or admit you were wrong.

As far as the US military being made up of professionals, just remember, being professional is not just knowing your job, but knowing the implications of your job. Professionals look ahead.

{Personally and parenthetically, I would question the professionalism of any US soldier in either of the present wars, who had not done his level best to learn as much of the local language as possible. Sure, maybe his command might not think that's important. But if that soldier is a professional, it has to be obvious that the key to defeating an insurgency is support from the local population, and if the soldiers are unable to communicate with the local population, that ain't gonna put numbers in the victory column. But then that's my personal opinion, I think learning foreign languages is important.)

In any case, a US soldier competent at his small little list of responsibilities, but unable or unwilling to think about the bigger picture may remain a good soldier, but he is hardly a thinking professional. Just a tiny mindless cog in a very big machine, is all he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MD82:

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainier.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

I agree. IMHO, my tax dollars being spent wisely. Our men & women in the service are priceless.

On another note; I'm working with some of the REAL Rangers from "Black Hawk Down" fame on two websites. They will be set up to aid ALL U.S. VETS, from ALL WARS. They are about done with the non-profit paperwork & meetings with the right important people. Just asking the Mods & owners, can I post those links when they are ready? Not selling anything at all, just setting up aid & networking to our heroes. The guys said something about leg units being invited too... </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke..

Let me see..from the top.. Not sending your soldiers to fight, sometimes causes more death than when you do..the deaths you mention in Iraq are very debatable, and remember, before we went there, Saddam had gassed whole towns, and many political executions, numbers in the many thousands. If the US had sent troops earlier, to, say, Europe in WW2..it is likely many of the millions would have been saved, although it would have been hard to prove..Iraq today is the same, there is no way to prove how many would have died if we had not gone in, but it would have been an extremely large number as well.

Second point..a large percentage of the 'insurgents' in Iraq, are not from Iraq..so the argument they are defending their country, holds no water. In hundred of cases, in hundreds of cities and towns, the locals are seeing the light and turning on the REAL invaders, who grab civilians out of their homes at night and execute them.

Third..the 85% number is personal experience, along with sharing notes with other units.

Fourth..I speak 5 languages and have 2 degrees...nearly everyone in my unit spoke at least a couple, and was working on or had a degree. And, again there, most all got along famously with all real civilians. The media took off with the insurgency idea, and really ran with it, because it seems to play into their preconceived ideas. It is not how I would classify MOST of the operations there however.

I do enjoy a real discussion, but do yourself a favor and lose your own preconceived ideas of the area and conflict there. There is a lot to it that you are not seeing, but it is there if you look hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Afghanistan, I am unsure what 'evidence' there is either way.. on one hand is a media that has already made it's decision, and therefore only reports stories that would support their faulty hypothesis. What I have seen is that by and large the people in both places are glad for the chance that was given to them. Women in Afghanistan now sit in government seats, al Qaeda is mostly a non-entity in all but small sectors of the country. Those are both rather important steps to victory..the women part, because it will bring them out of the harsh codes they had adhered to for centuries, the al Q part because that was a major objective of the campaign. And, oh yes..per Clauswitz, I would definitely say we have enforced a great deal of "political will" on both countries.

I would not. A few women sitting in on the national council in Kabul doesn't count for jack. What counts, is when the warlords in the sticks either (a) are afraid of the government that you are supporting so much, that they do what you want, starting with an end to opium production, followed by signing on to accepting laws promulgated by the central government or (B) the warlords for whatever reason decide to do that, of their own volition.

That isn't happening. Opium production is going through the roof, the border with Pakistan's Tribal Territories is not policed and completely porous, and the ability of the Karzai government to enforce its will outside of Kabul, is next to nil. Banditry is rife, and the only law that counts is the law of the clan.

Al Quada and the Taliban are still around but what's much worse, even if they were gone the chaos would continue. It's the tribes calling the shots, and the tribes answer to no one but themselves. If another terrorist nut shows up with enough money tomorrow, there is no question Afghan tribes will be happy to support him.

The objectives of the 2003 campaign was, as I recall, to punish Al Quaeda and the Taliban for supporting them. Those objectives were achieved quite rapidly - but that's not the objective now, and that's the problem.

The objective now is to turn Afghanistan into a stable place. Efforts to reach that objective are an abject failure, and history makes clear that any effort towards that end, by any nation or concert of nations, will fail.

Since that is the case, what is the point of spending lives and money trying to civilize Afghanistan? Why have the military "professionals" failed to read their military history?

A cynic would say, some probably have read their history, but a war is a war and combat duty helps the career. In spite of the dead and maimed subordinates. And others are just ignorant, they haven't read the history and aren't interested in doing so, they just want to shoot weapons and tell each other how professional they are.

It's a nice little war of course, but fighting a war and winning it are two different things. Deploying several thousand ridiculously expensive troops to the region who control little more than the ground that they stand on, and claim that's proof of success, is not imposition of political will by any Clauswizian standard. That's just waste of lives and money.

As to evidence, for starters, consider the historical record. To repeat, the last time any military imposed its political will on the Afghan tribes, it was the Mongols using the technique of blotting entire cities off the map. The Moghuls failed, British failed, the Soviets failed. There are absolutely no grounds to expect that the Americans and NATO could do any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

As to Afghanistan, I am unsure what 'evidence' there is either way.. on one hand is a media that has already made it's decision, and therefore only reports stories that would support their faulty hypothesis. What I have seen is that by and large the people in both places are glad for the chance that was given to them. Women in Afghanistan now sit in government seats, al Qaeda is mostly a non-entity in all but small sectors of the country. Those are both rather important steps to victory..the women part, because it will bring them out of the harsh codes they had adhered to for centuries, the al Q part because that was a major objective of the campaign. And, oh yes..per Clauswitz, I would definitely say we have enforced a great deal of "political will" on both countries.

I would not. A few women sitting in on the national council in Kabul doesn't count for jack. What counts, is when the warlords in the sticks either (a) are afraid of the government that you are supporting so much, that they do what you want, starting with an end to opium production, followed by signing on to accepting laws promulgated by the central government or (B) the warlords for whatever reason decide to do that, of their own volition.

That isn't happening. Opium production is going through the roof, the border with Pakistan's Tribal Territories is not policed and completely porous, and the ability of the Karzai government to enforce its will outside of Kabul, is next to nil. Banditry is rife, and the only law that counts is the law of the clan.

Al Quada and the Taliban are still around but what's much worse, even if they were gone the chaos would continue. It's the tribes calling the shots, and the tribes answer to no one but themselves. If another terrorist nut shows up with enough money tomorrow, there is no question Afghan tribes will be happy to support him.

The objectives of the 2003 campaign was, as I recall, to punish Al Quaeda and the Taliban for supporting them. Those objectives were achieved quite rapidly - but that's not the objective now, and that's the problem.

The objective now is to turn Afghanistan into a stable place. Efforts to reach that objective are an abject failure, and history makes clear that any effort towards that end, by any nation or concert of nations, will fail.

Since that is the case, what is the point of spending lives and money trying to civilize Afghanistan? Why have the military "professionals" failed to read their military history?

A cynic would say, some probably have read their history, but a war is a war and combat duty helps the career. In spite of the dead and maimed subordinates. And others are just ignorant, they haven't read the history and aren't interested in doing so, they just want to shoot weapons and tell each other how professional they are.

It's a nice little war of course, but fighting a war and winning it are two different things. Deploying several thousand ridiculously expensive troops to the region who control little more than the ground that they stand on, and claim that's proof of success, is not imposition of political will by any Clauswizian standard. That's just waste of lives and money.

As to evidence, for starters, consider the historical record. To repeat, the last time any military imposed its political will on the Afghan tribes, it was the Mongols using the technique of blotting entire cities off the map. The Moghuls failed, British failed, the Soviets failed. There are absolutely no grounds to expect that the Americans and NATO could do any better. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is defined as a military success is many times construed as a military failure by civilians. Tet Offensive (for the US) and "Black Hawk Down" are two perfect examples. Even though the military succeeded in its objective the political backlash was far greater.

We can argue costs, but the reality is in the post cold war era nations tend to get involved more in low intensity conflicts rather than the slugfests. The F22 costs costs 220 million dollars and the B2 is about 2 billion dollars. Yet, loading up 50+ tomahawk missiles would be much cheaper than either option.

Planes get congressional backing and until recently (last 7 years) body armor was a low priority for funding. Look at weapons development which is most useful for the modern era (Land Warrior, Body armor, non lethal weapons, small arms), yet more was spent on improving the FA/18 for much less to show.

The simple fact is we didn't want to be bogged down in Iraq (get in and get out) so we didn't put the manpower, money and a coherent strategy to stay. The options now are leave and watch the area descend into chaos with proxy wars amongst the regional players or stay and hope it becomes stable in 5-10 years. I have no illusions about quick resolutions especially when you look at Bosnia (supposedly 6 months we would be there) or Kosovo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, may I assume you believe these Afghans are some sort of savage that can not be civilised? Most people never would come out and say that. And I am curious where your information comes from? How long were you there? What part of the country were you in? Please expand on your intimate knowledge of these people. I see you are from the Ukraine, were you part of the Soviet force?

For what it is worth, I studied that campaign as well, and it was winnable, again a political decision cost the victory though.

I believe that a substantial proportion of the Pathan ethnicity does not accept the Karzai government as legitimate, and further, that Afghanistan's other ethnicities believe, as a rule, they have little to no stake in what you would like to see: a stable Afghanistan run by an effective central government.

Further, I am well aware that, for practical purposes, all citizens of Afghanistan consider themselves civilized. That's good enough for me. Me, I don't automatically equate "civilization" with "no warlords, no clans, but yes on shopping malls, easy credit, and a docile population where every one's number is in the central government computer." It appears to me that you do, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

You can start by explaining how the Karzai government will conduct a census, which well-read person that you are will recognize as the first basic step for an efficient central government to get control over citizens not used to being controlled.

I'll leave the questions about equitable tax systems, making a warrior culture obsolete, and government resources fairly collected and redistributed other posts. Just tell me, how are you or any one else going to figure out how many people are living in the friggin' country? Never mind govern them.

I would say you are now employing poor debating technique. Instead of refuting my arguements, you are questioning my background. You want to find out, search this forum.

Meanwhile, please answer the basic question, which I remind you I asked you, because you claimed things are going rather well in Afghanistan. How in the world is a US-led NATO force of some 40,000 troops, half of which are banned from getting anywhere near combat, going to impose its will on Afghanistan?

You said there is good progress in the campaign to make the place over into a stable state. So where, please, is the evidence?

I don't see it. I see increased troop commitments, increased casualty counts, outrageously increased cost, and more angry Pathans. I see NATO behaving precisely the same way as the Moguls, British, and Soviets before them. I don't see anything even resembling an original strategy, never mind a winning one.

Since you do, then it should be easy for you to explain how it's working so well.

Of course, if you can't, then please stop making preposterous assertions you aren't able to defend.

As to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I for one would be interested to hear why you think that war was winnable, seeing as you studied it and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

BigDuke..

It was you who said they are not civilized, in the paragraph right here..moreover, in your paragraph, you do imply they cannot be civilised. I do not equate malls, or whatever as civilisation..you were the one bringing in the term, in a derogatory manner, to imply somehow they were below that.

You still did not answer my question, which was actually not intended in an insulting way, regarding your background.

I will give you mine..a tour of duty there in southern Afghanistan, and friends that are still there today. We compare notes regularly, and are all amazed at how much it has improved in a few years.

As to your former nation's tenure there, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with history. Money and weapons from the US kept the fight going. The Soviets lost the stomach politically for what became an extended drain of treasure and prestige. They never completely engaged the enemy..when you consider this happened at the height of the cold war, while most of Europe and the US were worried about war breaking out against the WP..the amount the Soviets *could have done* was so vastly different from the amount they *did* do..

edit For what it's worth, I agree on the census, etc. As my original post said, the military has done it's part..militarily the victory is in hand. Politically is out of my realm. This was in my original post, and seems to have been missed. I am strictly referring to the military portion, although anyone who is in country now, and was there 7 years ago, will tell you it is a vast improvement, I do not believe that will last if the political elements are not addressed.

[ March 23, 2008, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I agree with your statement here. Two points though..2002 was Afghanistan, 2003 was Iraq. Secondly, once 2002 happened, it would have been negligent to not change objectives..would you rather we pulled out and left it worse than it was, after achieving the military objective? Logic says the next step is to make the country stable.

You do make some good points. Although mine sometimes seem snappy, some of yours I agree with. My only request was to get some of your information from sources other than a very biased news media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke..

It was you who said they are not civilized, in the paragraph right here..moreover, in your paragraph, you do imply they cannot be civilised. I do not equate malls, or whatever as civilisation..you were the one bringing in the term, in a derogatory manner, to imply somehow they were below that.

You still did not answer my question, which was actually not intended in an insulting way, regarding your background.

I most certainly do not imply the citizens of Afghanistan are uncivilized. I am saying, straight out, that the US-led NATO coalition has set itself the mission of civilizing the Afghans, with "civilizing" to be understood as converting a well-armed, tribal, multi-ethnic, incredibly rugged nation, into a governable place where international bandits could not hole up.

That, simply put, is the US and NATO attempting to impose its version of civlization on the Afghans, in all their tribes and clans and inaccessible valleys. I call that a stupid mission bound to fail.

So certainly I am being derogatory. But not towards the Afghans. Rather, towards those supporting the idea that the US and NATO are doing anything but waste taxpayer money in Afghanistan.

So lay it out, how do the 40-50 thousand NATO-type soldiers lay down the peace in Afghanistan? This is the third time I've asked you point blank.

As for me, I'm an American like you. I've worked as a reporter all across the FSU in lots of places I've doubt you've heard of, among them Chechnya and Transnistria, which you possibly have. Chechnya, in case you haven't heard, is a case of an Islamic insurgency defeated by the Christian invaders.

Beyond that, I have periodic to regular contact with WW2 veterans, ex-Soviet Afghanistan war veterans, and even Afghans trying to escape their country. Also US troops like you from time to time, and not just officers either. Besides that, I have my own buddy band in Afghanistan too - reporters, photgraphers, NGO types, flight crew, heck, I even know a cowboy capitalist. All without exception tell me my instincts are right: Afghanistan is an incredibly violent, corrupt country more resistant to change than any place they have ever seen.

As to why the Soviet Union bailed out in Afghanistan, let me point out that same Soviet Union you are noting lacked the will to accept casualties bought by US weapons in Afghanistan, defeated the Wehrmacht at the cost of 15 - 20 million dead.

So let me suggest a few better reason the Soviets failed to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan, than US support to the mujahaddin. Among them I would list:

1. Soviet Mothers protesting, in public, against war dead. It was practically impossible (want to know why, I'll tell you) for the state to repress them, and that was the first effective protest movement in the Soviet Union.

2. Minimal Soviet military commitment to the war, i.e., about 150K troops if I remember right. This was because of the government's unwillingness to commit the civilian population to a war, for domestic political reasons.

You and I agree here. I would ask you to put that shoe on the foot of the US: Is there the public will out there in the US to fight a war in Afghanistan and win? Not on a shoestring, but for real with all the cost and sacrifice that would require?

I ask because I didn't see that will five years ago, and I see less of it now. Therefore, I say, invading Afghanistan to stay is foolish, and those doing the invading are on a fool's errand. Without sufficient public support at home, there's no point to trying anything. Know yer limits and all that.

3. Soviet unwillingness to use the tactics they used in Chechnya, i.e., murder and terror against the country's population.

I would say that those three factors had far more to do with Soviet failure in Afghanistan, than Stingers. As we can see in Afghanistan right now, it is perfectly possible for the locals to run an insurgency, even if the invaders have total air superiority.

Just in case you forget, I'm still waiting on that recipe to make Afghanistan safe. You say you know. So let's hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, Bigduke

Thank you for answering my question

for the..third or fourth time, I will answer yours..Nowhere, in any of my posts, have I said I know how to make Afghanistan safe. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the military effort has been won. This is from my first post on the topic, and continued to my last. What I have also said, repeatedly, is that the effort now, is in the hands of the politicians, both US and Afghan, to make something solid out of the sacrifice our troops gave them. I have said this repeatedly, and grow weary of it. Go back and read my posts before you insist I have not answered you.

Yes, I know Chechnya as well..wandering a bit off topic here, but that is closer to the effort, as you said also, of what I meant when I said they could have won in Afghanistan. I am in no way condemning for not winning, or for not having the "stomach" for casualties. I have seen many casualties, and in many ways am one myself. I understand that mindset. I simply was saying, the USSR *could have*won, they *could have* crushed the opposition in Afghanistan.

As for the will back home..the reporter types, with all due respect, seem to be doing their part to make sure that doesn't happen. I think, from what I can usually see, anyway, that Afghanistan is sometimes just forgotten about. The only time it shows up to the average American is when the media wants it to, as when there is a rash of casualties. It does not show up when locals cheer our troops and bring food after battles with al qaeda..it does not show up when we build schools, and the children and their families thank us because their old school was destroyed by the Taliban before we arrived, and they have gone 9 years with no school in the village. Of course, those are not bad enough to receive coverage, so amazingly, no one in the US will hear them, until their unit goes home, and the kids wonder why everyone is seeing things they never saw while they were there, and not seeing how it really was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Omenowl:

What is defined as a military success is many times construed as a military failure by civilians. Tet Offensive (for the US) and "Black Hawk Down" are two perfect examples. Even though the military succeeded in its objective the political backlash was far greater.

We can argue costs, but the reality is in the post cold war era nations tend to get involved more in low intensity conflicts rather than the slugfests. The F22 costs costs 220 million dollars and the B2 is about 2 billion dollars. Yet, loading up 50+ tomahawk missiles would be much cheaper than either option.

Planes get congressional backing and until recently (last 7 years) body armor was a low priority for funding. Look at weapons development which is most useful for the modern era (Land Warrior, Body armor, non lethal weapons, small arms), yet more was spent on improving the FA/18 for much less to show.

The simple fact is we didn't want to be bogged down in Iraq (get in and get out) so we didn't put the manpower, money and a coherent strategy to stay. The options now are leave and watch the area descend into chaos with proxy wars amongst the regional players or stay and hope it becomes stable in 5-10 years. I have no illusions about quick resolutions especially when you look at Bosnia (supposedly 6 months we would be there) or Kosovo.

Good points. One quick one though..planes are as you said far more expensive, but A)are reusable, where a tomahawk is gone when fired, and B)planes bring a fail safe to the table..a tom will hit its target, a pilot can change mind or target up till the very last second.

Anyway, as I said, good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

abneo3sierra,

"Bigduke" from the Ukraine is getting more and more rude. It has become painfully obvious that he is not interested in your opinion. He will not even say "Your opinion is valid, though I disagree with it." His sole goal is to annoy you. Stop feeding the troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since that is the case, what is the point of spending lives and money trying to civilize Afghanistan? Why have the military "professionals" failed to read their military history?

A cynic would say, some probably have read their history, but a war is a war and combat duty helps the career. In spite of the dead and maimed subordinates. And others are just ignorant, they haven't read the history and aren't interested in doing so, they just want to shoot weapons and tell each other how professional they are.

How is following mission parameters set out by civilians a lack of competency? You do realise the US military is commanded by civilians, right?

A-Stan wasn't that bad when I was there last year, not as bad as I anticipated at least. We were embedded with a unit that was patrolling the eastern border with Pakistan/Waziristan and generally engaged Terry Taliban and his AQ buddies while crossing the border.

I want to echo what abneo3siera said earlier. The US military goes to every length short of not squeezing the trigger to avoid civilian casualties. The ROE is very restrictive and, although the media never reports it, soldiers are regularly punished for ROE violations. I know..I know..civilians always assume the military covers everything up and never punishes anyone, I'm sorry, but that's just plain incorrect. Ft Bragg is currently hosting a number of trials, from Abu Gahrib guards, to that guy from the 101st who tossed a grenade into his commander's tent when this whole thing started. All of them will be convicted, all of them will serve hard time.

I've been to Iraq a few times throughout the years, and each time the atmosphere was better. The last time, the people were more open with us, more honest-seeming, and generally more friendly. Again, as abneo3sierra said, this is a result of these people realizing who is actually causing them the most harm. Generally speaking, they aren't going to be harmed by a soldier unless the soldier is provoked, and the steps required before the soldier can take any action are beyond reasonable, AQ-I (and friends) obviously don't have these restrictions and can, and do, kill at will.

And no, I don't believe Iceland and Ireland are keeping civilian deaths down by remaining on the sidelines, in fact, I believe that anyone who fails to oppose an enemy, strengthens that enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dean F.:

abneo3sierra,

"Bigduke" from the Ukraine is getting more and more rude. It has become painfully obvious that he is not interested in your opinion. He will not even say "Your opinion is valid, though I disagree with it." His sole goal is to annoy you. Stop feeding the troll.

I agree. My apologies to you all. I guess sometimes I have a short fuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dean F.:

abneo3sierra,

"Bigduke" from the Ukraine is getting more and more rude. It has become painfully obvious that he is not interested in your opinion. He will not even say "Your opinion is valid, though I disagree with it." His sole goal is to annoy you. Stop feeding the troll.

BD6 hasn't been rude, in fact I think the debate has been remarkable mature on all sides given the depth of feeling everyone has.

There's been no automatic gainsaying as in a trollish debate, just a representation of the argument from different perspectives.

I'm enjoying it.

In short: get to know people before calling them trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in both Vietnam and Iraq the fighting was/is against people who had absolutely no grudge against the US until we did something completely idiotic. We (Truman) brought the French army back to occupy Vietnam after WW2. We (Bush) invaded and occupied Iraq.
You do realise the current Jihad has been ongoing since before our invasion of Iraq, yes? I'm sure you don't realise, because no media reports it, but the majority of the bad guys in Iraq are not indigenous, when they were some years ago, they were the remnants of the Baath-era Army still loyal to the party. They have largely been dealt with in one way or another.

Many people don't realise that S. Iraq is made up of a large proportion of ethnic-Persian/Iranians, particularly in Babil province. Many people also don't realise that a good number of the bad guys are organized crime, and not all of them locals. I challenge anyone who labels the enemy in Iraq to be an "insurgency," to tell me where the concentrations of indigenious fighters are, when you find that, please tell me who their enemies are and what motivations they would have to continue to fight.

As a side note, the Iraqi govt in-place now is, in my opinion, inept and generally dissociated from the task at hand. They are lazy because they expect we will always be there to do things for them, and so far we have shown that to be a fair assumption to have. The govt is despicable, and our govt fails to give us even minimal support.

@Bigduke,

You said something earlier about "ignorant" or incompetent soldiers who don't try to learn the local language. You are uninformed. Almost every single Iraqi I have ever dealt with, and there have been many, spoke English. That alone takes care of your asinine comments about us not being able to communicate with the populace, but it gets better. Almost every soldier I know that has to actually interact with indigenious personnel outside of the "Haji Mart," can speak and understand at least a few common phrases, enough to get across simple commands: Halt, Hands above your head, come here, show me your hands, do you speak english, drop your weapon/holding, etc. Arabic is a wonderful language, and I would love to get into the DoD school and get certified with it but I simply don't have the time to do it.

Further, every soldier before deployment receives a briefing about the general culture and the differences between Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurd. They are instructed on rules conservative muslims may follow and expect us to follow while in social situations, and etc.

@the question of whether or not spending $100,000 to save one soldier is worth it.

Yes, even from a practical dollar value stand-point. I'll use myself as an example. I attended 3 seperate schools before being getting to my first duty station, BCT, AIT, and Airborne school. I do not know the costs of BCT and Airborne, but I can tell you that my AIT cost a little over $98,000 for just me as an individual. With that school alone, that $100k weapon system has almost earned back it's cost in keeping me alive. Those 3 schools are not the only schools I have attended since that time, and listing them would be pointless as I don't know their associated costs and I don't want to appear boastful. My point is, from a training standpoint, soldiers are expensive before you even factor in the equipment cost. Besides, I would rather fill out a hand receipt for a new missile/rocket than write a death letter to Pvt Snuffy's parents explaining to them just why I wasn't willing to fire my nice shiny weapon to save his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...