PDA

View Full Version : Straw Poll: War in Afghanistan


revefsreleets
10-07-2009, 09:07 AM
All of a sudden, the pop media is reporting that Americans have "turned against" the war in Afghanistan. I'm skeptical...I know the media is TELLING me that I'm now against the War, but I'm not. I think it's where we need to be right now, and McChrystal's surge is righteous, IMO.

Anyway, on the 8th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, please chime in on your opinion of the legitimacy of our efforts there:

fansince'76
10-07-2009, 09:11 AM
Yes, and I think we need to send even more troops. The Taliban needs to be destroyed, plain and simple. If it takes decades, so be it.

xfl2001fan
10-07-2009, 09:23 AM
The Taliban can't be destroyed...they'll just find somewhere else to set up shop. The reality is, we don't have UN backing...and never will. There are too many cowards and/or corrupt officials in the UN for us to ever have the necessary backing/support to completely eradicate the Taliban.

That being said, that doesn't mean we should quit fighting the good fight. One of my beefs with "W" was that his focus was so hardcore on Iraq...when we needed a lot more support in Afghanni. Move the focus to Afghan, keep a stabilizing/launching force in Iraq and continue on!

revefsreleets
10-07-2009, 09:29 AM
We will certainly need to from stronger coalitions in countries where the Taliban sets up shop...now they are moving to places like Yemen. But as yo are right to point out, they still have a stronghold in Af/Pak and that's where we need to focus our attention for now.

Hammer Of The GODS
10-07-2009, 09:43 AM
I voted yes but I have one caveat.


TAKE THE DAMN POLITICALY CORRECT HANDCUFFS OFF!


For those of us who have seen combat ( in the new era of PC ) we know how many "rules" there are when engageing and fighting the enemy. The scale is NOT balanced and it is not fair to our troops who put thier ass on the line.

And one other thing. When the government commits to a war it should NOT half ass its way through it. GIVE THE TROOPS THE SUPPLIES THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL! Our soldiers should not be writing home and asking thier parents to get them replacement boots, kevlar jackets and helmets!


And oh yea.............. the UN can get fuct!



.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-07-2009, 09:53 AM
I voted yes but I have one caveat.


TAKE THE DAMN POLITICALY CORRECT HANDCUFFS OFF!


For those of us who have seen combat ( in the new era of PC ) we know how many "rules" there are when engageing and fighting the enemy. The scale is NOT balanced and it is not fair to our troops who put thier ass on the line.

And one other thing. When the government commits to a war it should NOT half ass its way through it. GIVE THE TROOPS THE SUPPLIES THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL! Our soldiers should not be writing home and asking thier parents to get them replacement boots, kevlar jackets and helmets!


And oh yea.............. the UN can get fuct!



.

My thoughts exactly...you cant make war "fair". Fair wars last longer. Its more humane to take off the gloves and win quickly...fewer people die.

Send in more troops, eradicate the enemy and send a message to future would be islamic fundamentalists. If you want to find out what awaits a martyr in heaven, we will be happy to oblige.

KeiselPower99
10-07-2009, 10:00 AM
We need to blow em back to the stone age in a flurry and get it over with.

AllD
10-07-2009, 10:47 AM
You know the Taliban is Iran's enemy. This might be another of those grinding wars where we just have a presence to threaten Iran. You also have Iraq on the other side squeezing them too.

Steel_12
10-07-2009, 11:29 AM
The war on terror will never end, unfortunately. There are too many crazy people that hate our country. Killing yourself for Allah is what some of these clowns live for, ironically. They will never stop trying to kill, kidnap or torture Americans.

stlrtruck
10-07-2009, 11:31 AM
I voted YES and agree with Hamer of the Gods caveat!

We should never leave a job undone but at the same time we can't send our troops in blind or lacking detailed plans to end it!

fansince'76
10-07-2009, 02:30 PM
The Taliban can't be destroyed...they'll just find somewhere else to set up shop.

Perhaps, but we can at least try. I still think we need to put more boots on the ground there, and as HOTG suggested, take the kid gloves off for the first time since WWII and ditch 90%+ of the current bullshit "rules of engagement" which are forcing our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Fire Haley
10-07-2009, 03:18 PM
It's a quagmire

Obama's Vietnam

No blood for poppies!

43Hitman
10-07-2009, 03:22 PM
I think we should stay the course, give McCrystal the resources and troops he needs to get the job done. We can't leave now and have those that have lost their lives have done it for nothing. Our boys should be outfitted with the best equipment the rest of the stimulus money can buy. Like Dragonscale(I think that's what it's called) armor for one.

revefsreleets
10-07-2009, 03:46 PM
11-1 so far....hmmmm...I guess this board is not very representative of the America that CBS and CNN are telling me about.

Vincent
10-07-2009, 06:18 PM
The "West" fails to recognize that this "jihad" thing is against Israel and the West.

Their "book" says there are three kinds of folks on this rock - muslims, those that will become muslims, and those that won't. Their "book" teaches them to persecute, torment, and destroy the latter.

Their invasion of the West has been going on for 50+ years. Western Europe is over run and will succumb in a decade or two. They have a significant population in the US and have established themselves as a protectorate of the gubmint )read: you and I can't do or say @#$% about it). They have numerous "compounds" (read: safe havens) that are highly fortified and serve as "training centers" for "converts".

Pakistan has nukes. Iran is close. Iraq was well within range of getting them. When the weapons are available to the radical elements, Iranians, Taliban, whomever, they will use them. The West will allow it to happen because we are so hamstrung by political correctness we're unable to recognize and neutralize a fatal threat.

Maybe after an attack or attacks the West will act and lay islam to waste. Doubtful though.

I voted yes but with the trepidation that we will substantially "go it" alone, and because of the putz in the White House we'll do the "measured response" bull@#$% that wasted so many lives in Viet Nam.

The West has got to realize that we are at a decision point. We win or we lose. What we don't realize is that the defeat of either side will be total. The defeated survivors will envy the dead.

11-1 so far....hmmmm...I guess this board is not very representative of the America that CBS and CNN are telling me about.

America isn't representative of the America that CBS and CNN are telling you about.

tony hipchest
10-07-2009, 06:30 PM
i just wish it could all be solved w/ non nuclear daisy cutters and MOABS.

TheWarDen86
10-07-2009, 06:30 PM
I voted yes but I have one caveat.


TAKE THE DAMN POLITICALY CORRECT HANDCUFFS OFF!


For those of us who have seen combat ( in the new era of PC ) we know how many "rules" there are when engageing and fighting the enemy. The scale is NOT balanced and it is not fair to our troops who put thier ass on the line.

And one other thing. When the government commits to a war it should NOT half ass its way through it. GIVE THE TROOPS THE SUPPLIES THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL! Our soldiers should not be writing home and asking thier parents to get them replacement boots, kevlar jackets and helmets!


And oh yea.............. the UN can get fuct!



.

My thoughts exactly...you cant make war "fair". Fair wars last longer. Its more humane to take off the gloves and win quickly...fewer people die.
Send in more troops, eradicate the enemy and send a message to future would be islamic fundamentalists. If you want to find out what awaits a martyr in heaven, we will be happy to oblige.

Count me in with these two. :drink:

TheWarDen86
10-07-2009, 09:46 PM
It is a sink-hole that absorbs the lives of our servicemen and our national resources. Nothing can be gained from "winning" there.
It is long past time to leave.
/ at the very least, let's have an official Congressional declaration of war so it's at least legal.

:doh:

:banging:

MasterOfPuppets
10-07-2009, 10:16 PM
i just wish they would quit dickin around with it...either go all in and all out , or give it the hell up already. its quite obvious whatever in the hell strategy they're doing now is a waste of lives and money, so either flood the place with boots and lead, or give it up but .to give it up now would be a disserves to the people who have already gave thier lives. it's way past time to turn up the heat on those freakin ragheads. this half assed effort by the government is erily similiar to the way they drag thier feet on our border and immigration issues.

Preacher
10-07-2009, 10:27 PM
i just wish it could all be solved w/ non nuclear daisy cutters and MOABS.


Why is it I think we have found one area in the entire political spectrum (war is the ultimate world politic) which you and Revs will agree.

Count me in as well.

I am completely for the war in afganistan...AND Iraq.

What I am NOT for, is fighting the war with lawyers and camera's second guessing even command and decision.

Either you release your men to make war, or you do not.

tony hipchest
10-07-2009, 10:56 PM
Why is it I think we have found one area in the entire political spectrum (war is the ultimate world politic) which you and Revs will agree.

Count me in as well.

i would say that statement is rather unfair. it basically puts us as polar opposites in the political spectrum...

which, by definition would pigeonhole him as an extreme radical right winger, and myself as a socialist lefty.

neither of which is true.

we see eye to eye on many issues and there are several where i actually take a more conservative approach.

our main differences stemmed from the candidates at hand as opposed to the issues themselves.

the issues are always a constant. the candidates to solve them are ever changing.

with that being said, there are also many differences. im sure nobody ever expected us to be soul mates. :chuckle:

Preacher
10-07-2009, 11:38 PM
i would say that statement is rather unfair. it basically puts us as polar opposites in the political spectrum...

which, by definition would pigeonhole him as an extreme radical right winger, and myself as a socialist lefty.

neither of which is true.

we see eye to eye on many issues and there are several where i actually take a more conservative approach.

our main differences stemmed from the candidates at hand as opposed to the issues themselves.

the issues are always a constant. the candidates to solve them are ever changing.

with that being said, there are also many differences. im sure nobody ever expected us to be soul mates. :chuckle:

Nope, you could be a statist and the polar opposite is a libertarian to the point of anarchy.

Or you could be a liberal with conservative military thoughts, and he a conservative fiscally but a isolationist!

Many ways to be polar opposites!!!

But my statement was more in jest.

tony hipchest
10-07-2009, 11:41 PM
i guess it IS whatever YOU say it is, then.

:hunch:

thank you. :hatsoff:

revefsreleets
10-08-2009, 08:20 AM
It was counterinsurgency. The shift will be towards counterterrorism. If we take that (proper) tack, we are completely in the right to once again level a question to the entire world: "Are you with us against the terrorists, or are you with the terrorists?"

I'm guessing you were against the War from the start?

As in any war, the plan changes the second it's put into action. Anti-war Utopians, who insist on living in a fantasy World where all people just get along should really recuse themselves from this topic. There are harsh realities to be dealt with, and people who cling to fantastic notions of "Star Trek" like lasting peace really aren't qualified to discuss tough matters like these...War is real, and humans will always fight wars as long as we retain that atavistic part of us, the "Lizard brain"...denying this is silly.

If we leave Afghanistan, we cede both it AND Pakistan back to the Taliban. What then? And I'm leveling this question directly to anyone who said we need to pull out. What would be YOUR anti-terrorist plan?

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-08-2009, 12:57 PM
The 'sunk cost bias' strikes again.
We all know that the past is past and we can’t get back money or time that we already spent. It's irrational to take sunk costs, time, money, or other resources which have already been spent and can't be recovered, into your decision making.

The people who are dead are dead. It is no longer possible to do them a service, but it is still possible to do the living a disservice.
Does anybody even know what the objective is in Afghanistan? Is it counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? How will we know when we've won? We've been there 8 years and still haven't figured out whether the Taliban is the same thing as Al Qaeda or not.

Never mind voting in THIS poll....By this point in our nations history, anyone who doesnt know the difference between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda...should be barred from voting in ANY election.

Taliban: a pseudo-governmental group of thugs with strict religious and tribal codes. Some of which do not fall into the confines of the Koran. Originally started by tribes intent on overthrowing a corrupt government. Upon success they insituted extreme and ruthless rules to remain in power, including working with Al Quada for politcal and military considerations.

Al-Qaeda: An Islamic fundamentlist group calling for a world jihad to rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences and to retaliate, by any means, against those who "conspire" against the Muslim world.

The Taliban and Al Quada share the ideology of following a "sharia" law....with the Taliban adding those tribal traditions that I talked about earlier. Where Al Qaeda is concerened with world politics and setting up "true Islamic nations" as they define them...theTaliban is much less concerned with world politics then it is with controlling the regions under its tribal rulers and not giving its power back to the populace.

The Taliban became dangerous due to their willingness to let Al Qaeda set up training camps in their region and in their crimes against humanity within their own peoples.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-08-2009, 01:00 PM
It was counterinsurgency. The shift will be towards counterterrorism. If we take that (proper) tack, we are completely in the right to once again level a question to the entire world: "Are you with us against the terrorists, or are you with the terrorists?"

I'm guessing you were against the War from the start?

As in any war, the plan changes the second it's put into action. Anti-war Utopians, who insist on living in a fantasy World where all people just get along should really recuse themselves from this topic. There are harsh realities to be dealt with, and people who cling to fantastic notions of "Star Trek" like lasting peace really aren't qualified to discuss tough matters like these...War is real, and humans will always fight wars as long as we retain that atavistic part of us, the "Lizard brain"...denying this is silly.

If we leave Afghanistan, we cede both it AND Pakistan back to the Taliban. What then? And I'm leveling this question directly to anyone who said we need to pull out. What would be YOUR anti-terrorist plan?

Well put...thank you for answering the other part of the question.

hindes204
10-08-2009, 03:37 PM
The people who are dead are dead. It is no longer possible to do them a service, but it is still possible to do the living a disservice.

WRONG!......Take it from somebody who is over here defending your right to say stupid shit like that....if we pull out now, all of the men and women who have died(some who i have personally known, and others who i have carried in flag covered caskets on thier way to thier final resting place) would have died for a nobel cause that we gave up on too early. You DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE that you can do the dead a service by finishing what we started. Give us the troops and equipment we need over here, and we will prevail

Preacher
10-08-2009, 03:44 PM
WRONG!......Take it from somebody who is over here defending your right to say stupid shit like that....if we pull out now, all of the men and women who have died(some who i have personally known, and others who i have carried in flag covered caskets on thier way to thier final resting place) would have died for a nobel cause that we gave up on too early. You DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE that you can do the dead a service by finishing what we started. Give us the troops and equipment we need over here, and we will prevail

:salute:

Though you are probably wrong in one area... YOu don not need troops and equipment first...that's second.

First, you need the government to SEND HOME ALL THE BLEEEEEEEPING LAWYERS AND BEENCOUNTERS that are trying to run the war.

THEN, send troops and equipment! :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
10-08-2009, 04:02 PM
How will we know when we've won? We've been there 8 years and still haven't figured out whether the Taliban is the same thing as Al Qaeda or not.

With every single day that safely passes in this country without a terrorist attack, I feel as though it is one more day that we have won.....

My deepest respect & grattitude to Hindes, and to all of you who are or who have bravely served this great country.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 04:42 PM
The 'sunk cost bias' strikes again.
We all know that the past is past and we canít get back money or time that we already spent. It's irrational to take sunk costs, time, money, or other resources which have already been spent and can't be recovered, into your decision making.

The people who are dead are dead. It is no longer possible to do them a service, but it is still possible to do the living a disservice.
Does anybody even know what the objective is in Afghanistan? Is it counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? How will we know when we've won? We've been there 8 years and still haven't figured out whether the Taliban is the same thing as Al Qaeda or not.

Maybe you should ask the people in the "service" how they feel about it. I'm pretty sure most if not all of them would piss on your theory. Not everything is as black and white as you paint it and yes there IS still honor in this world and I assure you that the folks you claim to be concerned about are more apt to not want to have let their comarades die in vain.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 05:20 PM
Probably, but speaking as someone who has been there, it isn't their job to formulate policy, it's their job to execute it. They are (as was I) all about the mission. But there is no "mission" in Afghanistan. Ask around.


'Scuse me, but it *is* exactly as black and white as I paint it. It's just that not everybody can divorce the emotion from the argument and look at it rationally.
Just maybe I have a better claim to "not wanting to have let their comarades die in vain" than most of the people on this forum, since I'm opposed to continuing the policy of killing them off for no gain.

Look... It's not just about "fighting", it's about "winning". Every life and every dollar that is not expended towards the goal of winning *is* in vain. But you cannot "win" without an objective.
I'll pose the same question to you: What is the objective in Afghanistan?

What is the objective anytime we send in our troops? "To win...."

I don't need the "we're not here to practice democracy, but to defend it" crap from you. Lemme guess, 2nd LT? 1st LT?

And I'm agreement with those who say we can't until the handcuffs are taken off. I've been out for....15 years, but my best friend is CH-53 pilot and unless I'm mistaken he takes the same stance as I. In fact, part of my stance has been formed by the men I've spoken to who've returned. Not sure what you did, or where but I most certainly have "asked around."

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the mentality of committing to an operation and then turning tail before the goal has been met. Objective you ask? are we not still getting messages and threats from Osama Bin Laden and Co.? When that ceases (for EVERYONE) then I guess it will be "Mission Complete."

Preacher
10-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Ask your President what the mission is there. Even he doesn't know.

Isn't he your president too?

And please lay off the broad-brush strokes. It would be much easier to paint the Taliban as Jingoistic. It was their outlook and foreign policy which made them explicit partners in the blatant and bloody attack on a foreign power. During a time when the U.S. had VERY LITTLE military presence in the Mideast, outside of a UN mandated presence covering the No-fly zones of Iraq.

I was for both wars from the beginning, because I believe that belligerant foreign policy needs to be met with head-on force. Both Afghanistan through its association with Al-Queda and Iraq involved in such foreign policy... to the point of destabilization of many elements of the mideast.

As far as Geo-politics are concerned. I am very worried about a fall of Afganistan back to Taliban rule. Such a fall could precipitate a similar fall in Pakistan. THAT is scary to the nth degree, as I can only foresee Pakistani/India relations going south. One of Bush's greatest achievements which went unheralded (as usual) in the American press was averting the Pakistani-Indian war of the early 2000's, a war between two nuclear powers who has the stated intent of using them.

A nuclear war on the subcontinent, with one of the nation's governments tied in theory and support to the same government in another nation that is arm and arm with terrorists... Is just NOT a happy situation.

For all those reasons and more, we need to stay there and fight.

Preacher
10-08-2009, 05:24 PM
Probably, but speaking as someone who has been there, it isn't their job to formulate policy, it's their job to execute it. They are (as was I) all about the mission. But there is no "mission" in Afghanistan. Ask around.
What I'm about these days is the only thing in that entire oath that's really meaningful: "Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". That part is something that everyone can do.


'Scuse me, but it *is* exactly as black and white as I paint it. It's just that not everybody can divorce the emotion from the argument and look at it rationally.
Just maybe I have a better claim to "not wanting to have let their comarades die in vain" than most of the people on this forum, since I'm opposed to continuing the policy of killing them off for no gain.
Maybe it's easier to recognize the contributions of the fallen since you can see them, but it's easy to forget that American soldiers will die tomorrow as well, and next month and next year. Maybe they deserve a little honor as well. You advocate putting them in harm's way *knowing* that many of them will die. I feel they're entitled to an explanation of why you feel it's necessary, why the gain will be worth their sacrafice. Can you give them that?

Look... It's not just about "fighting", it's about "winning". Every life and every dollar that is not expended towards the goal of winning *is* in vain. But you cannot "win" without an objective.
I'll pose the same question to you: What is the objective in Afghanistan?

Simple. TO WIN.

That means establishing a viable and self-defending constitutional democratic government which is willing to participate in the world community without the use of terrorism or association with terrorist organizations.

Seems to me that has been the objective since day one.

In other words, TO KILL THE TALIBAN.

hindes204
10-08-2009, 05:32 PM
hindes,
You aren't the only war vet on this forum, so spare me your jingoistic emotion-based argument. I would not sacrifice a single soldier's life just to puff up your ego or make you feel that the 8 years of waste up to this point was worth it.
Americans have been bleeding in those mountains for the last 8 years, and we haven't accomplished squat. Due to the geopolitics of that region, we're never going to, either. Ask your President what the mission is there. Even he doesn't know.

wow.......jingoistic emotion based arument......puff up my ego.......you are absolutely unbelivable, i would enjoy nothing more than to write an "emotion based" post right now, but it would probably end in me being banned.

We went in to Afghanistan in the first place because the Taliban gave safe haven to al-qaeda, and the plan was to rid the world of as many terrorists as we could...you may not agree, but i think a world with less terrorists in it is a better world. We will never rid the region of al-qaeda, but if we allow them set up camp, organize, and run freely without opposition, there is no doubt in my mind that another large attack on America will be inevitable

hindes204
10-08-2009, 06:02 PM
Thank you for responding without personal attacks (even though you sorely wanted to) :hatsoff:

Let's talk about this, 'cuz you're pretty close to the heart of the matter.

I actually do agree. So how, by the objective measure of number of terrorists, have we done thus far? Please support your conclusion with citations.


Also true. So where are they training/ camping/ organizing? (hint: it's not Afghanistan). What kind of efforts are we putting forth where they are actually at?

There are no solid numbers to back anything up, as the US really doesnt keep a body count...but since the beginning of the war on terror, al qaeda has taken a huge blow to its organization, you cant deny that. As far as the training/camping/organizing, they are a worldwide terror network, known to be present in over 100 countries. However, the bulk of the people trained, were trained in Afghanistan...the number is rumored to be around 5000 since al qaedas inception. They are organizing in Yemen, Pakastan, Afghanistan, and Iran these days, and most intelligence presented says there is still a large group in Afghanistan, so like i said, every terrorist removed from here, is one less terrorist that can harm us

steelreserve
10-08-2009, 06:17 PM
Even if we don't "win" the war or stamp out the Taliban anytime soon, you have to realize one good thing that's happening is that by us being over there, it IS disrupting what all the terrorist assholes are doing.

Sure, they can go make a mess in their own home countries, but that's a hell of a lot better than them doing it here. As long as there's a steady stream of new islamic extremists, I'd rather most of them waste their time trying to go fight the 101st Airborne Division. Good luck with that. It's probably the best possible matchup we could hope for. Much better than them attacking our civilians.

hindes204
10-08-2009, 06:32 PM
Disrupting them is better than doing nothing...and why do you insist on patrionizing me by saying things like "hint, its not in afghanistan" and "i know why, do you".......explain your seemingly un-paralleled knowledge on the subject. As far as your supporting documentation, one report is six years old, its irrelevant ....the other acknowledges that most of the al qaeda leadership has been killed or captured

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Actually, I can.
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RS21529_05232003.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Please explain why your assessment disagrees with the National Intelligence Estimate.
I know why. Do you?

So just how important is Afghanistan to them? And by extension, how important is Afghanistan to us, and why?

First-of-all, one of those links is from 2003. The other one caused 30 pop-ups on my computer. Anyway, I see what you're getting at and I think I may agree to a certain extent.

Pakistan has failed to keep them from their borders, and while Afghanistan isn't everything, they have few choices to set up training camps (especially anyhere near the scale they were pre 9/11).

Also, hopefully our personal intelligence components have rebounded from the Clinton years and are keeping tabs on how they're getting their funds.
Despite what their numbers may be, their wallet and the leadership experience has been immensly effected.

Now, if you you're suggesting that we pull out of Afghanistan as a combat element, and continue to kill their organization through other, less conventional means, then I can go along with that.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 07:05 PM
No doubt, but I'm not arguing that we should do nothing. Although even doing nothing is preferable to doing something dumb that hurts your own effort.

Oh, no thanks. If you want to argue this subject, you should demonstrate at least a passing knowledge of it.
You want to put American lives in the balance. Prove to us that your reasoning is sound and your knowledge of the subject is at least passable. If you can.


Attempting to poison the factual base? That won't get you far unless you can replace it with something else. An argument from a position of ignorance is still ignorant.

I'm not interested in any diversion from the subject. I can prove conclusively that the current strategy has failed *every single time* it has been attempted. I can prove conclusively that the efforts of the last 8 years have done nothing except make our enemy more powerful rather than less.
I know why this makes perfect sense, although I haven't yet gotten into the nuts and bolts.
If you wish to contradict me, then by all means present your case and back it up with fact.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! No, I think what he was trying to say is that YOU were attempting that with an out-of-date article.

You can quit it with the holier than thou crap too.

You HAVE NOT proven that our enemy is "more powerful" either. Good recruiting numbers does not necessarily make the more of a threat. They need resources too.

One thing you cannot argue is that we've not been attacked since 9/11. I'll assume you don't need a link as proof.

You keep saying we failed (and continue to over and over). Yea, we missed Bin Laden, but we have won battle after battle with them. They are on the run. Wanna give 'em credit? Fine, they are adaptive, resourceful and resilient. But depsite what their numbers may be, they are weaker as a result of our efforts.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 07:18 PM
WarDen,
I apologize for the pop-ups. I didn't know they'd hit you like that.


The objective is to render them combat-ineffective by modeling our strategy on a philosophy that has proven effective in the past. We don't get to kill 'em all, they just become irrelevant.
That all misses the point, tho'.
Point is, we're not going to do anything that's truly effective because that approach is politically unfeasible.
Until such time as our Republicans and Democrats are willing to put what needs to be done ahead of political expediency, our people will continue to die for no good reason and our enemy will continue to gain strength. That sickens me, and you folks can hate on me all you want. :drink: (not you personally, WD; you seem like a reasonable guy)...


I believe that as long as they're on the run (and not attacking us) they are much less effective in "their mission." That to me, is worth continuing the fight. If someone with the intelligence and ability to sway how we actually define the fight comes along and puts us on the path of actually dismantling them for good, then obviously I'd be all for it.

I'd like to think I'm reasonable, but I'm also immensly patriotic and immensly hard-headed. None of those characteristics however compare to the immense fear I have for my family when I think of what might happen if these bastards are allowed to settle and organize against us again as they did leading up to 9/11.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 07:20 PM
I never said Bin Laden was important, and when I said "we", I meant the collective "we" going all the way back to Algeria.

They are clearly not "on the run" if they're executing attacks in Springfield, Illinois.

They are decentralized extremists. Nothing more, nothing less. And they haven't scored any victories that we haven't given them.


I disagree. I say they're stronger than they've ever been, and we have given them that too.

You and I are going to have to just agree to disagree. I'm discouraged about continuing this debate as I completely disagree with everything you've said here.....and this is back to where we started.

BTW - "They" didn't attack anyone in Springfield. A lone American freak who's never actually been a member of Al Qeada was "plotting" an attack. I call that an "in house" problem....nothing more, nothing less.

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 07:31 PM
Have a good evening, and Go Steelers! :drink:

You too. :drink:

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 07:35 PM
I might recommend reviewing the organization and history of AQ before dismissing that as immaterial.

Dude. C'mon. He never had any contact with them and he stated that he "dreamed of going over seas to join them." It shouldn't go unmentioned that he was a vagrant with a troubled past (including prison).

TheWarDen86
10-08-2009, 08:07 PM
You act like this surprises you. :popcorn:

I've got a recommendation for you if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Like-Terrorist-Insights-Undercover/dp/1597970255

Or not. Just throwing it out there.

It would appear that you are mistaking me for someone you feel is naive. I assure you, I am not. While that book is no doubt an interesting read, I lost interest when I saw it was written by an FBI agent. The stuff I'd want to read would be written by somone involved in an agency with no name who had a security clearance that required a clearance to even know that clearances name.

This book probably has a lot of the same info that the Counter-Terrorism classes I took while I was still in the Marine Corps had. Albeit, updated but again, I do read a lot and am fairly confident that I am up on current events and trends of our enemies.

Anyway, thanks. I'm still trying to get through Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

revefsreleets
10-09-2009, 05:49 AM
I think I have a different view from "keeping them on the run".

Afghanistan and Iraq have had a magnetizing effect. They CREATE battlegrounds where we are able to actually drag these rats out of their holes and exterminate them.

Let's be perfectly clear...this war is "on". It will continue indefinitely...There have been radicalized Muslims forever, and there will continue to be radicalized Muslims forever. At this early stage of this particular incarnation of our battle with them, we are fortunate to have a couple hot spots where we can draw them out in in concentrated numbers and actually fight them in something resembling toe-to-toe combat.

But that won't be how we defeat them.

We'll need to cement real long-term lasting alliances with Countries that truly have the courage to roll up their sleeves and decree "Enough is enough...we want these scum eradicated, too!"

Pulling out of AfPak does NOT accomplish that. Instead, it shows the World that we lack the political will and are particularly weak and vulnerable against this kind of enemy. If we cede these two countries back to the Taliban (and, by proxy, AQ), then things get exponentially WORSE. India/Pakistan relations will deteriorate (and they are both nuclear capable Countries), and, more importantly a VERY clear message is sent to any nation attempting to battle radical Muslim elements: The US is no longer capable of helping us.

I'm sad that many people have died, and I have a heavy heart when I think about how many more will perish before we can finally reach a stable enough threshold to declare some kind of victory, but the alternatives are far, FAR worse.

revefsreleets
10-10-2009, 03:36 AM
(sigh)

The only thing I can say is that I'm thankful that you aren't making the tough decisions in these matters...

We are not "staying the course", we are evolving the strategy, creating more HUMINT, gaining new allies, and we will ultimately devise a long-term successful anti-terrorism campaign. We will NEVER have peace through diplomacy with these people.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2009, 08:19 AM
I am sorry that I missed this debate over the last several days. The truth is, this debate is based on a faulty line of logic. We will never be able to eradicate terrorism....no more than we can eradicate "evil".
What we have to do in the middle east is continue to keep Al Qaeda in a state of flux.

1) We take out their leadership (as we have been doing).
2) We plant operatives within their organization and thwart their plans before implementation (as we have been doing).
3) We continue to make their terrorist training harder by keeping them in hiding, erradicating known training facilities, and opposing those who facilitate this training (as we have been doing).

The Taliban chose to allow terrorist training in their tribal areas, and justifiably are guilty by association. The "Goal" is take out the Taliban leadership until a legitiment government fills the vacuum. Just as we are attempting in Iraq. This is a long term project, that is probably going to take a generational change of attitude.

By the mere make-up of this type of War, (much like the IRA whose makeup consists of "cells" independent of each other) , we may never be able to completely "walk away". Because if we do, the lack of opposition allows the network to work more openly, and will no doubt make the enemy stronger.

Make no mistake about it. Our choice is to keep Al-Qaeda off balance until they crumble from within, or walk away with the knowledge that a MAJOR terrorist attack is a certainty.

If we are concerened about loss of life...then our only real choice is: ...will the lives lost be those of our fighting men and women who CHOOSE to be in harms way and at least have the means to defend themselves, or do we hand over the innocent lives of civilian mothers, fathers, and children who cant fight back and just happened to be in the targeted building or city of a cowardly terrorist.


*****EDIT*******
Just wanted to add that ANY politician who is figuring out "where they stand" by licking their finger and holding it up to the winds of puplic opinion polls...needs to be dragged to the graves of the 911 victims and look into the eyes of those loveones standing at the gravesides who were left behind. Shameless and unexcuseable.

revefsreleets
10-10-2009, 08:43 AM
The Romans used to say that about Quintus Fabius Maximus during the second Punic war, and for largely the same reasons. They eventually came around, but they lost a lot of soldiers in the learning process.

What's interesting about this is your automatic assumption that YOU are taking the high road, that YOU are the intellect who clearly knows whats going on, and that I represent the ignorant masses. Silly...although marginalizing like that MAY work on some of the less astute.

To further elaborate on my earlier train of though, and I believe, to a degree, what LLT is also laying out, in the thinking of many (including liberal Thomas Friedman, whom I include because I've read his work which proves many things in and of itself), the US doesn't need to "win" wars...we simply need to keep any alliances or blocs of power that could challenge us off-balance and unstable. We aren't conquering, nor are we attempting to hold conquered lands. Our well-being is based on a much more complex system than Rome's was.

In re keeping our enemies unbalanced, this is relatively easy in the case of Muslims, because they have a long history of being their own worst enemies. We are pursuing a policy along those lines in both Iraq and now Afghanistan. True, we are on a longer learning curve because their culture and way of thinking is different then ours, but, in the long run, it is still our strategy and it will be an effective one. Even Obama, I think, is coming around to that way of thinking.

Utopians are wonderful, and I'm happy for them and their fantastical alternate reality, but they need to stay at the Universities and publishing scholarly books and blogging and posting on message boards and OUT of actual public policy making.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2009, 12:27 PM
LLT,

It's not a question of whether they had it comin', it's a question of whether bringin' it to 'em was the most sensible and effective means for furthering our national interest.
You argue that it was, and I argue that it wasn't.



I argue that you have to keep them off balance and that cannot be achieved unless we "bring that to them".
If you know of a way to keep them in hiding, take out their bases and leaders without "taking it too them" . Then this is the perfect forum to explain that.

The ultimate goal here is to defeat Al Qaeda and it's associated groups, to render them incapable of offensive action against us. Anything that does not contribute to that end is a diversion and anything that interferes with that is a damnable waste of resources and lives.

Not sure of your point here. Do you think that it is a waste to take on those who would open their country to a group that has declared war against our nation, and who would allow those terrorists to train in their country, knowing that they are targeting America?

In this case, the matchup is identical to the one I mentioned above. Their greatest strength lies in their ability to engage us in pitched battle, winning the truly important battle; that of public perception. Their greatest weakness is a logistical one, same as Hannibal, except again, one of public perception.

The winning strategy is the Fabian one; harass but do not engage, to deny him his victories. Interdict his supplies by eliminating his ability to forage.

You are contradicting yourself here, and your first statement is false, they do NOT have the ability to successfully continue to engage us openly.

I'd add that every time terrorist organizations have been engaged as we are doing now, the terrorists won and every time they were engaged as I propose, they have lost.

1) I think you are confused between the differences between guerilla's and terrorists.
2) We are winning the war on terrorism on two grounds, militarily and humanitarian. As much as certain factions want to ignore the humanitarian accomplishments in Iraq: the progress in eduation , the increase in medical availability, the establishment of a government in which some (especially women) have voted for the first time in their lives...are facts. On the military front, Al Quada now has to try and run its operation like rats, out of caves, and in the darkness of night. They are severly hampered by a Military force that will happily blow them back to the stone age if they want to try and operate out of camps like they did a decade ago.


The correct strategy is always politically undesirable,

Wrong. The correct strategy should have nothing to do with politics. Sometimes the politics lean left and sometimes it leans right. The correct strategy is ALWAYS screw the politics and let the General in the field make the decisions independent of politicians.

We're either in this to win or we're not. And I know it sounds arrogant to say it, but history has shown that we will either come around to doing it my way eventually, or we will lose,

Wrong again. There is NO presedence for the type of war we are fighting and it would be foolish for anyone to make anymore than a bare, small-part comparison with any other type. With the lack of a template, we have to be patient, and let time work on our side.

As I said before, the ONLY alternative to keeping the enemy off balance is to wring our hands and wait for the enemy to come to us.

revefsreleets
10-10-2009, 12:53 PM
That would certainly be no worse than your attempts to marginalize me as a "utopian" if it were true, but it's not.
If there's any way that I feel I'm taking the high road, it's because I'm not allowing emotion to cloud my assessment. I'm being 100% pragmatic and rational about it. I have studied our enemy at length. I know the history, I know what has worked and I know what has not worked, and I know why.
Feel free to attack me on the grounds that I know what I'm talking about, but please keep in mind that I'm not the enemy here. :wave:

Obviously, but the strategic situation is identical. Absolutely identical. The strategy that actually denies the enemy his strengths and exploits his weakness is politically unacceptable, and we're left with either playing his game by his rules, or giving up.
Again I ask: On what basis do you make that prediction?

.


Please...if I was attacking you, you'd certainly know it.

You ARE a Utopian, and it takes no great leaps to see that. You have offered NOTHING as a viable alternative other than some impossible diplomatic mumbo jumbo and a lot of "no's". You were against Afghanistan from the start, which places you in a teeny sliver of the minority, and the ONLY people I know of that didn't like or understand us being involved there were uber-Peacniks and "No war at any cost" ideologues living in a fantasy world...

As for Rome, did you READ what I wrote? Rome was trying to conquer lands, and to hold those conquered lands. We are not. We are attempting to destabilize dangerous rogue elements by not allowing them to work coherently together, thereby minimizing the threat. It has literally NOTHING to do with what you are referring to in re Rome. It's an interesting argument when discussing the business of fighting a war based on popular opinion, but those days ended with Clinton. Even Obama is waking up to that fact. Irrelevant.

Finally, as for evolving strategy, how the Hell should I know what the final great strategy to permanently destabilize radical Muslims is? It's an ever-changing and fluid situation, and our doctrine needs to change along with it until we find what works best. We clearly haven't found it yet, but we certainly aren't going to throw our hands up in the air and say "This is TOO hard, and people are dying....let's just quit!".

Thank Christ we didn't fall into that kind of trap in the early days of this Country, or in the Civil war....

revefsreleets
10-10-2009, 01:13 PM
The long and short of this is, I think if both of us were placed in the exact same situation where we had to deal with radicalized Muslims, I'd walk out, battered and bloody (AFTER I tried to talk to them and reason with them) and you'd be on the internet getting your head cut off...

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2009, 02:08 PM
LLT,

Perhaps you're confusing Afghanistan with the bigger picture here.
I'm arguing that the war in Afghanistan is counterproductive to the war against Al Qaeda.
.

Nope...I'm not confused at all. You talked about "bringing it to them" but then stated that we are wasting time in Afghanistan. Since they were training out of camps there, how exactly do you "take it to them" without going there? Obviously we both agree that there were camps there so how exactly is Afghanistan NOT part of the big picture?


Speaking strictly tactically, they are active and training in 100 countries all over the globe, including right here at home. Denying them Afghanistan doesn't hamper their operational capability at all. All it does is give them more recruits.

You are not being intelectually honest here. You know the difference between "camps" and "cells" To simply try and classify both as "training" sites is a rabbit trail. Other wise please tell me (and the local authorites) where the closest Al Qaeda training camp is in the United States.


Every day in Afghanistan, we just give them another opportunity to portray themselves as the guy in the white hat and get new recruits for their "Jihad against the Great Satan".
There, as in Iraq, most of the people we're battling aren't local. That's no coincidence.

Here is a news flash for you. There are haves and have-nots in this world and the have-nots dont like the haves. Never have...Never Will. You know...history and all that. If we gave the world the cure for cancer those have nots would still not like us.

We are losing the war by the only measure that matters: numbers and operational capability.

We are only "losing the war" in the minds of those who watch 15 second CNN clips. The truly unfortunate reality about this war is that it has become more about proving the last administration wrong, then it has been about letting our soldiers win.

That's actually dead-on, but "Should" <> "is" and I'm sure you have to agree with that even if you disagree on exactly what the proper strategy happens to be.

agreed


Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

A Quote misplaced is called a Misquotation

Churchill was facing a conventional war, and could see a repeat of past mistakes. Without a "proper" example of a war that fits the one we are fighting now, one cannot repeat history. Al Qaeda remains the world's first truly global terrorist organization. So... I said before, there is no template to work from. Simply put, we cannot "repeat" a lesson when the time in which we live will be the blueprint.


Except you know what? Minucius was proven wrong and killed tens of thousands of troops to learn the hard way. The "dilatory and inactive" course of action that he railed against was what ultimately won them that war, while his aggressive but misguided outlook almost lost it for them

Again, if you are going to try and use an historical example, you would have to find one that "fits" what we are facing today. There is no such example.


The way to beat Al Qaeda is relatively simple (if not for politics): We have actually been very succesful on a military level, and that MUST continue. But we must also attack the Al Qaeda propaganda machine. Al Qaeda's willingness to resort to violence alienates them from most Muslims who do not see this as true to Islam. So we should exploit that backlash and subtely put into the world stage, those Islamic voices now speaking up against them. Also the Arab world is very aware that Al Queda has no governmental program to fall back on...a return to the Caliphate is nonsence.... it would never work in the majority of the Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia...and the Arab world knows it. Again classic counter-propaganda is to place seeds of doubt in the Muslim world in regards Al Qaeda wanting complete governmental take-overs.
Attack the Al Qaeda's narrative....its interpretation of history. Al Qaeda's anti-Western message is that the U.S. doesn't respect the Muslim world. So we must work within the confines of those Muslim countries that we consider allies.
All this must be done without giving Al Qaeda victories that would mobilize a new generation of jihad warriors. That can only be accomplished by continued Military presence.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2009, 04:13 PM
LLT,

A terrorist organization is a terrorist organization. There is no practical difference between the goals, methods, strengths, and weaknesses that separate one from another. Every terrorist organization that has been defeated has been defeated the same way, and the fact that AQ happens to be global doesn't hamper that strategy in any way.
If you want an example of a successful campaign, review the history of the KKK. If you want an example of a failed one, check out France vs. Algeria.




Still not the same...Al Qaeda has achieved a level of world wide terrorism that is beyond any attempt to categorize historically. To use a KKK blueprint in dealing with Al Qaeda is the equivelent of using a pop-warner play book to beat an NFL team.


You are so dead-on here, it's scary. :tt03:
Where we disagree is on the last sentence. Do you not realize that it *is* our continued military presence in that region that is giving them victories and mobilizing new generations of jihad warriors?

WHAT!!!!???? If every Taliban victory is the catalyst for mobilizing new generations of Jihad warriors...Then how is "quitting" a viable solution!!!??? You are actually making a strong case to STRENGTHEN our forces.

It's not that we intentionally set out to invade their holy lands or defile their religion or slaughter their race, but the friction of war invariably causes mistakes that invariably work in their favor.

Generally when I get into these debates...little things pop out at me that "speak" louder than the typed words. When I see someone equate our soldiers actions with words like ..."invade"..."defile".....and "slaughter".... I begin to see why we may be on the opposite sides of a debate.

The objective of this war is to defeat Al Qaeda, and that is only done by separating them from their logistic base and choking them out. You pegged it in your post: Most Arabs *hate* AQ and the only way they get recruits is when we provide somebody for them to hate more.
If we were to play this game smart, playing on their weakness and denying their strengths, I tell you that the Muslim world would stamp out AQ for us.

Actually I dont think you did understand me...I specifically stated that we have to keep a military presence in the region to stamp out embers before they become fires...

What you are saying "now" is the opposite of what you said earlier. First you stated that what makes new generations of Jihad warriors is our defeats, but now you are stated that if we leave the region as a defeated foe...the same Muslim generation will fight the Al Qaeda for us.


Now, as with Fabius Maximus, the question is simply "do we have the political will to implement an unpopular but effective strategy, or will we continue losing with style

Again your logic is based on a faulty premise...The only thing that keeps us from grinding the Taliban into dust...is the "political will" of the politicians. It is a catch-22, the politicians tie the hands of the troops in the field...then using a lack of military gain as "proof" that we need to reduce our commitement, thereby tieing the hands of the troops in the field....

Preacher
10-10-2009, 04:25 PM
It took only one post for me to recognize Go Slash as the type of poster that thinks someone is beneath him intellectually if they don't agree with him.

That they don't have "all the facts" or is Naive.

Simply put... He sounds like a university professor who has never dealt with the real world. Everything is great in theory...

Funny thing, probably the greatest counter-terror warrior in American Special Forces sees terrorism is the force of chaos against order, and the only way to win is to fight... and fight dirty.

Go read about Richard Marcinko.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-10-2009, 05:42 PM
#1 I disagree. AQ has the same vulnerabilities that the KKK did, and there's no reason why we can't beat the new guys the same way.



That is perhaps the most naive thing I have ever read. I will let you re-read that statement and let you clarify. You are obviously more intelligent than that.

# 2 Even if that were true, a "Pop Warner playbook" would still beat the stuffing out of no playbook at all.

Again...Not a very well-thought out statement. I am going to assume that you are either frustrated or tired, because I dont believe for a second that you think our Generals in the field dont have a "playbook at all." Really??? You seriously think we are "winging it" day to day??


Because their victory lies in *having* the battle. Don't you see that? They *want* the collateral damage, the urban conflict, the bad press, and all the rest of it. That is how they score their propaganda victories.
They want us over there because we inadvertently become their #1 recruiting tool.

Simple question to challenge that misinformed statement. If what you say is true...Why are they less effective today then they were 8 years ago?


If you think you're "beginning to see" anything from that, you're mistaken. *I* know who the good guys are, but it doesn't matter what I think. It's a PR war, and the battlefield is the hearts and minds of the average Muslim on the street.
What matters is what THEY think, and how it all spins out on Al Jazeera.

I think you know who you "want" the good guys to be, but your statements reflect a belief that its not us...as long as we remain in the region. The PR war will not be won in the hearts of the "average Muslim" but rather in an American resolve to fight terrorists with weapons and not with the blood of our innocents. The PR war is here...with OUR media. Your ideology would pave the road for a future attack on American soil...there is now way around that. .

There's no conflict there. Our defeats are not now, and have never been in the battle itself. We haven't lost a skirmish the entire time we've been over there.
Our losses are in the collateral damage, erroneous detainments, enhanced interrogations, and everything else associated with the fact that the battle is occurring.

You wanted sooooo bad to type the word "torture"...good save on your part. For someone who likes to reflect on history, you seem to forget that we won two World Wars with the understanding that you cant "play nice" in a war. The simplistic idea of fighting a war without collateral damage...without a percentage of erroneous detainments...and without interrogations is the stuff of 70's protest songs. War is ugly, bloody, sad, and unfair. I am a Veteran of the 1st Persian Gulf War and can tell you that if given the choice...I WANT a war to be unfair, to my advantage.

World War II vets will tell you that they began to realize that the German people were partailly responsible for the Allied contribution to collateral damage and civilian deaths. When you allow evil to permeate your country, then you should expect damage when the evil is eradicated.
The true battle isn't on the ground in Fallujah or Kandahar, it's on Al Jazeera, the internet, and in the Mosques.


You can't seriously sit there and proclaim that AQ would foolishly send all their recruits to die in Afghanistan and someday they'll run out. You know better than that and you've already said as much.

That is a diversion from the truth and you are building a strawman...I already told you that it has to be a two pronged attack militarily and through PR...and that it would be generational. Please try and debate fairly.

Another American skyscraper blown up and reported across the worlds television sets and newspapers will recruit more future terrorists than years of occupation by our military. THAT most certainly will be the end result of leaving Al Qaeda to train without opposition or fear


They are operating from the same playbook the terrorists have employed since 1954, and I'd be willing to bet you've never even read that playbook (http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/ira_green_book.html), else we wouldn't be having this discussion

Before I left the service I had served in the Middle East and trained soldiers to fight in the Middle East. I have forgotten more about the Muslim people then you have ever read...in a "book". I have perused the so called "Al Qaeda Training Manual", but have enough practical experience to know that using an early 20th century "playbook" as the end-all in figuring out a 21st century terrorist organization, that is infinately more tech and world savvy, is asanine.

Knowledge vs Application.

.

Preacher
10-10-2009, 06:05 PM
Preacher,

Well-poisoning and anti-intellectualism. I did my homework and you didn't. That doesn't make you right.
Do you have anything to counter the argument itself, or do you have something beyond "I don't want to listen to you because you think you're smarter than me" ?
What's the objective here? You want to feel smart, or do you want to win the war?

Um... Name dropping, whether it is in conversation or logic, still shows insecurity.

I wasn't speaking to the issue and thus, it wasn't well-poisoning. I was speaking to YOUR METHOD of discussing the issue.

Fact of the matter is, my point still remains. You are producing theories that sound great in classrooms, but have no real world significance.
___________________________________
SECTION EDITED: Just read you were in the war.. . . you have my greatest appreciation for doing so. I still disagree with you as I think your assumptions misunderstand the reality of humanity. But now I read you a different way. Thank you.
_______________________________________
What was the STATED objective underlying everything? President Bush said it very clearly, "To drain the swamp"

Seems like you didn't do your homework either.

Preacher
10-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Begging your pardon, but you weren't speaking to the issue and that's *why* it's well-poisoning. By all means, debate the subject, but you get no bonus points for attacking my form; that's irrelevant.
In any case...
Can't be helped. I state my conclusion and the facts on which it was based. I try to get my point across as directly and precisely as possible. That comes across as professorial and academic, but that's just how I present an argument.
I know it rubs people the wrong way and I apologize for that... but it's the only way I know how to do it.


Of course it has real world significance. Conventional forces have had many run-ins with terrorists. History tells us what works and what doesn't. Research and logic dictate to us what *must* be done in order to win. It makes much more sense to figure out what we're doing before we go and do it. It has all the real world significance of looking at film before you head out onto the field.

SECTION EDITED: Just read you were in the war.. . . you have my greatest appreciation for doing so. I still disagree with you as I think your assumptions misunderstand the reality of humanity. But now I read you a different way. Thank you.

I accept that humbly and gratefully (hell, there was a war on and they told me I was invited :chuckle: ), but that doesn't grant me any special favors. I still put my pants on one leg at a time and I still expect you to speak your peace.


Question #1: How's the water level? Question #2: Is that still the objective today? Question #3: With AQ active in 100 different countries, Do you believe that draining the swamp in Afghanistan will win this war for us?

I know you don't agree with me, and that's okay. Neither do most people on this forum. That doesn't bother me.:thumbsup:

To answer your question succinctly, yes. I still believe draining the swamp will win the war. The question is, "what war?" There is a fueled hatred for the "decadent west" It isn't just because we have military in the mideast. It is because we produce two girls kissing on stage at a concert and those pictures are spread in the mideast as well. It is because we produce clothes that are too revealing. it is because we produce movies that doesn't measure to their mores and values, and they make their way there. The hatred for America and the ability of individual expression even in immorality is fundamentally opposed by certain elements in Islam.

You can't negotiate with faith. This war WILL be fought, and it will be fought in one of two places, here, or there. I prefer we fight it there. IMO, it has inhibited terrorism to the degree here in the states that our security people here can find and stop the terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, the idea was to drain the swamp so that chaos doesn't reign. That is a major, long engaged battle. We HAVE already seen victories. Libya giving up their WMD is a major victory. What happened in Lebanon with the protests was a victory (and we should have supported it much more). The protests in Iran was a victory (and we should have suppored it a HECK of a lot more). I submit to you that none of those things would have happened if the US didn't invade afganistan and Iraq.

revefsreleets
10-11-2009, 12:02 PM
The Punic Wars were about Roman Expansion into Carthage. It was a battle between the two biggest powers in the World at the time. EXPANSION doesn't mean....um....conquering?

Bottom line, it's completely irrelevant...I mean there is NOTHING from that example that can be applied to this example whatsoever...sorry.

Interesting that you accuse me of being incapable of arguing about this without passion clouding my judgment....you couldn't be farther from the truth...

I'm done...Your view is fine...thankfully it is not shared by anyone with any kind of decision making power.

By the way, though, I got a GREAT kick out of your message that YOU know how to beat radicalized Muslims....I bet you can run an NFL offense, too...:chuckle:

revefsreleets
10-14-2009, 10:07 AM
He'll do as his General wishes, which is the obvious and correct response.

Good day, sir...

Hammer Of The GODS
10-14-2009, 04:59 PM
I said the *second* Punic war, did I not? I'm pretty sure I did, as I was there when I typed it.
*That* war was a defensive war against Hannibal, and you are attempting to cloud the issue.

Please elaborate on the comparison of the "2nd" Punic war and the war we are engaged in now. Explain why this annalogy is relavent and why it's lessons apply here.

Before you dodge the question by assuming I have no knowlege of the Punic wars and suggesting I should read up on the Punic wars, don't bother. I love history and spend most of my free time learning about it, especially military history.

I just want to know your reason for the annalogy so I can get a feel for what EXACTLY you are trying to say.

.

Preacher
10-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Saddest thing, is that we are forgetting the lessons we learned in vietnam.

The carpet bombing, the constant warfare, the releasing of A-Teams which did an OUTSTANDING JOB (Until Washington DC tied their hands behind their back and signed a deal with comnunists stabilizing Laos that ended up opening up the Ho Chi Min Trail) and the Navy Seals to wage guerrilla warfare against guerrilla fighters, etc. all were immensely successful.

What was not known at the time, was that the Tet Offensive was a desperate stroke by the viet cong, and they suffered dramatically. So much so, that when peace talks began, the viet-cong/NVA were surpised that we were coming to negotiate.

The lessons learned here is 1. Release the special forces to DO THEIR JOB. 2. Back them up with the traditional military, but don't tie their hands. 3. These wars are destined to take DECADES because they are low intensity conflicts.

Stopping now will only embolden religious fighters who believe it is Allah's will to go to war against the Devil. A victory will cement the belief that Allah has approved the battles and by extension, Al-Quada was correct in attacking America. Is there a connect logically? No. But theologically, the jump in that belief is like stepping off a curb onto a street, simple and easy.

We WILL win this war, if we don't back down. If we DO back down, we will be fighting this war much closer to home next time.

revefsreleets
10-15-2009, 08:20 AM
OK, one more time into the fray.

Let's define "American victory" first. Since the US is, for all practical intents and purposes, completely invulnerable to invasion, for several reasons (Geographical access to both major Oceans, control of those Oceans with a navy larger and more powerful than all the rest of the worlds navies COMBINED, etc, etc...), it is impossible to base to draw analogs from ANY prior war or conflict in pre-US history.

US victory is simple: Keep any alliances that could threaten the US unbalanced. That is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, we're actually doing it relatively cheaply in the big picture, both in terms of cost of lives and materials and resources. In fact, this US vs. Jihadist conflict is already starting to draw down.

The ONLY was the US could be defeated is if ALL the Muslim countries in the world banded together, formed alliances with say Russia and/or China, and launched a full on, large scale, long-term conflict with us, and they would STILL fail....but it would be exponentially more costly for us if this were to happen.

All the US needs to do is continually keep the Arab/Muslim world at each others throats and we virtually eliminate any real threat to us. We will NEVER stabilize Afghanistan, and possibly may not ever create exactly what we want in Iraq, but we DON'T NEED TO in order for our interests to be protected and served.

We will SURGE troops into Afghanistan because that promotes our best interests, which is to continually destabilize the Jihadists.

I'll give a couple more examples of how this works: Look at Vietnam. Many think that was a US defeat, but was it? Didn't it really achieve many of our original goals? We destabilized the region, and the countries that allied themselves with us benefited (by 1970, China was much more our ally then enemy), and the country that did not (North Vietnam), well, how did that turn out for them?

How about Korea. How's NORTH KOREA doing these days?

The point is salient and clear. The strategy we are pursuing in Afghanistan is VERY MUCH in our best interests, and will continue on for the near future as such...tactical errors will be made, but the strategy won't change much, nor does it need so...