Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So, we WON in Afghanistan.. Dude, you got too many wars going on to keep 'em straight. Let me know when you figure out which one we were talking about.
Dude!
excon
|
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So, we WON in Afghanistan.. Dude, you got too many wars going on to keep 'em straight. Let me know when you figure out which one we were talking about.
Dude!
excon
Nice try at obfuscation...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No, we won in Iraq. We WILL win in Afghanistan if we use the same basic strategy.
But you deny that we won in Iraq, so I don't expect you to admit that we can win in Afghanistan either. You are stuck in a loser mentality.
YOU lost in Vietnam (actually you didn't, the politicians did) and so you can't possibly see any situation in which the US military can ever win. Not in Iraq and not in Afghanistan. You're still stuck in 1969 where the US military are the "bad guys" and can never win, and you never came home from that war.
Well the world has passed you by, and we've learned a few lessons since then. You ought to try catching up to the rest of us.
Elliot
No my solution is not to pull out and do nothing but to convert the military effort to a civilian effort. It is a ridiculous idea to garrison every Afghanistan town to provide security. Why did the Taliban take over in the first place? Because the corruption in the place was so endemic it was an affront to them and the presence of foreign forces and their practices is an affront to them. That they have behaved excessively themselves is not debated. The Americans behave excessively, should we invade America? Many of those who did are probably now dead. They only harbour Al Qaida because they are fellow travellers, people who will fight for the same cause. But the Pustun people are the dominant ethnic group, it is their country. Give the country a viable civilian government and the Taliban will go back to their hills. Maintain a corrupt government and they will continue to fightQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If Al Qaida was going to attack my country it would have done so when it had the resources. The quarrel is with America and the reason they attacked you was your military presence in Saudi Arabia. They have some secondary objectives regarding the Palestinians and they see you as failing to protect them by siding with Israel. This cannot be a holy war against the Taliban but that is what it has become. The objectives in Afghanistan have been achieved, The Taliban government deposed and Al Qaida pushed out of Afghanistan. If I follow your logic and strategy you will next attack Pakistan to defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaida a base of operations and WMD. What a brilliant strategy ensuring an ongoing war for generations. Know this well, The Pakistani people have no love for the Americans, they only fight the Taliban because of lawlessness. Pakistan already provides that training and recruiting ground for terrorists you think your presence in Afghanistan denies Al Qaida
Yeah... because civillians are better at fighting a war in the mountains against armed terrorists with RPGs, mortars and heavy weapons than soldiers are.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Bwahahahahahahaha
Elliot
They did.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
May 2, 2004 - Two Americans, two Britons, an Italian and an Australian were killed and nineteen Saudi police officers were injured when 4 assailants opened fire on the personnel of a Saudi contractor in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia.
September 9, 2004 - The Australian Embassy in Jakarta is attacked by a suicide bomber in a car. 9 are killed. 180 injured. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Jemaah Islamiyah, an AQ sub-group.
November 8, 2005 - Police foil attacks in Sydney and Melbourne, arresting several Muslim terrorists.
You may not be a MAIN target, but you're still a target. You are on their radar. Yeah, you guys haven't been hit too hard yet. But just remember, the word "yet" is an acronym for "You're Elligible Too".
Elliot
The whole idea is not to be fighting in the mountains, so far that has proven very unproductiveQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Do you live in the past? There are more recent incidents than thisQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Next you will be saying the bombing of the Marriot in Indonesia was an attack on Australia. Targets of opportunity, Elliot, but if it had been America they would have bombed the crap out of Indonesia. We know JI doesn't like us because we helped throw Indonesia out of East Timor. We present a greater target in this region than America, but these attacks are sporadic and the death throes of fundamentalism in the region rather than a real threat. This has little to do with Al Qaida and a lot to do with local politics.
Yes we have Muslim terrorist cells here just like you do in the US. We have been successful in finding and neutralising them. Perhaps this is because they are few and lacking organisation and direction because you have neutralised AL Qaida elsewhere
Unproductive to whom? The Soviet Union? Yeah, they couldn't handle it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Our soldiers, though, are doing a lot better. We haven't lost a single engagement in those mountains. Not one. And casualties have been extremely low in Afghanistan... even in the mountains. There have been a total of 802 US casualties in Afghanistan in 8 years of operations (as of 9/23/09). That is an extremely low casualty rate by any standard. By comparison, insurgent fatalities have been listed at between 23,000 and 23,500, with 1,000 POWs captured. That is a rate of exchange that any military commander in history would have been grateful for... 2805:1 in our favor.
Our soldiers can do better still with enough troops the properly blanket the areas that need coverage.
Don't assume that just because the Soviets couldn't fight in the Afghan mountains that we can't. It is an incorrect assumption. The US Soldier, especially it's Spec Ops soldier, is better than that. So are the Australian soldiers who are there... roughly 1,500 of them.
For all the talk about how Afghanistan is a disaster in the making, it just simply isn't true... not by anyone with a real understanding of war.
Elliot
Clete, I think your assessment of our economy is flawed, in that you say it is based primarily on wartime economy.
Reagan took office when inflation and unemployment were both rampant.
Reagan opted for supply side economics, and we enjoyed about 20 years of good economic growth.
Seems we never learn from the past, though.
One summer does not a swallow make and aggregating old statistics doesn't make a victory. Even your own generals, who I expect have a real understanding of war, have said that without more troops they face defeat. Troops win engagements but they haven't won the war. Australia has suffered 11 dead in Afghanistan, does this mean we have won anything? No just like you we know that to secure anything needs more troops but that doesn't mean victory. The enemy has the ability to retire to a safe haven and regroup just as we do. There is no decisive victory, no territory held without fighting the same battles over and over again. Actually American casualties have been relatively low in Afghanistan they seem to die a third as much from other causes than from combat wounds so I don't know how it can be said they are engaging the enemy in their mountain strongholds and that doesn't appear to be the strategy that will be followed in the future. You see Afghan politics have taken over and the Afghans will feel more secure if the Americans are guarding the streets than if they are hunting Taliban. I expect that will be because there are less targets to shoot atQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So... if the fact that we have won every engagement doesn't mean anything, and the fact that we have had so few casualties while the enemy has had 2800 times the number of casualties that we have had doesn't mean anything, then how do you define victory and defeat?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You have put forward the idea that we are "losing" in Afghanistan. What is the yardstick by which you make that judgment?
I have put forward measurable items (casualty rates, number of victories and losses in battle, exchange rates of attrition, etc.) with which to make my assessment. What measurable items do you put forward to counter them?
Am I saying that we don't need more troops? On the contrary, I am saying that we DO need them. I am just countering the argument that sending such troops would be futile because we are already losing. We are clearly NOT losing. And more troops would mean a quicker, less painful victory and more solid control of the entire region.
Unless you have a counter for that argument that is based on something tangible, it is just your unsupported opinion against my statistics.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I have an argument for you.
You put forward those numbers as though they mean what you want them to mean. But, they don't. In Vietnam, we killed a LOT more of them than we lost... But, those numbers didn't change the fact that we lost...
In terms of the drug war, which is another war you wingers think you won, and have the numbers to back you up. After all, as a result of your drug war, our prisons are chock full of drug dealers. In fact, we are the worlds LARGEST jailer. And, it means NOTHING in terms of whether we're winning...
The measurable items I have to put forward, is the huge and GROWING insurgency against us in Afghanistan, your numbers notwithstanding.
excon
[QUOTE=ETWolverine;2081244]
You have put forward the idea that we are "losing" in Afghanistan. What is the yardstick by which you make that judgment?
/QUOTE]
Your argument is spirous Elliot, "we have won because the enemy has more casualties than we do". Your own leaders have said that without more troops you will loose so obviously the situation isn't as you perceive. Yes, in the early days you extracted a heavy price from the enemy, but those are past glories. The enemy didn't accept your contention that he was defeated. This enemy has the sense to know they cannot win a large scale battle but neither can you secure the country, because they have effectively neutralised the value of your heavy weapons
You fail to realise you are not just fighting a few thousand fanatics, but a tribal people who rally when threatened. Your successes against the tribal people of your own nation has clouded your judgement. Many of the people you fight have been driven out and they live in camps on the other side of the border. If you think this is easy take a look across that border at the Pakistani campaign, they have the same idea as you, the enemy has more casualties than we do so we are winning, but nothing decisive has happened, there hasn't even been an engagement of any size, the enemy has just faded away.
If you leave Afghanistan then what remains is a few thousand fanatics with only their own people to fight
[QUOTE=paraclete;2081746]I'm not buying that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Before 9/11, there were fanatacs in Afghanistan, and they found someone to fight other than other fanatics, didn't they?
[QUOTE=galveston;2085877]I'm sure your statement is correct when viewed from a western perspective. However there is a fanatical component to the way this war is being pursued now with targeted bombing by the US in PakistanQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Before 9/11 there was a war in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance with the Northern Alliance likely to loose. Prior to that there had been a war between the Mujahadeen and the Soviet Union. Somewhere in this mix was Al Qaeda, who it appears also had a dislike for the US and pursued their objectives outside Afghanistan. The War in Afghanistan didn't stop Al Qaeda attacking London or Madrid from their base in Pakistan, all it really did was give Al Qaeda an enemy closer to home than the US to focus on
Actually, Vietnam just proves my point... if we don't actually FIGHT THE WAR, we will lose it, no matter how many battles we win. Right now, the ROE in Afghanistan is tying the hands of the military leaders. We are creating another Vietnam by playing politics instead of fighting the war. If we put the assets where they are needed, and if we change the ROE appropriately, we will win the war like we have won in Iraq. Just as we would have won in Vietnam if we had changed the ROE and put the assets where they would do the most good instead of playing politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Your Vietnam argument PROVES MY POINT. We WERE winning in Vietnam... right up until the politicians threw it all away. Your recommendation is that we allow the politicians to throw away Afghanistan as well, even though we are winning. What a wonderful strategy.
Actually, we have lost the drug war for the same reason that we are losing the war in Vietnam... we haven't put the assets where they are needed to do the job, and we've played politics instead of fighting the war.Quote:
In terms of the drug war, which is another war you wingers think you won, and have the numbers to back you up. After all, as a result of your drug war, our prisons are chock full of drug dealers. In fact, we are the worlds LARGEST jailer. And, it means NOTHING in terms of whether we're winning...
The measurable items I have to put forward, is the huge and GROWING insurgency against us in Afghanistan, your numbers notwithstanding.
Excon
The way to win a drug war is to destroy the crop at its source. That means going into Colombia and napalming the cacao crops, bombing the drug labs, and killing the cartel leaders. We haven't done that. Instead, we have used our assets to try and stop the drugs en route to the USA, tried to catch the dealers and users here, and generally screwed the whole thing up. We haven't fought a WAR on drugs... instead, we've handled it like a police action. We made an arbitrary decision not to take the fight to the enemy's home turf... created an arbitrary line on a map past which we would not pass, just like in Vietnam. With the predictable result that we've lost the war. Just like we lost Vietnam.
Vietnam was treated like a police action, and we lost. The War on Drugs was treated like a police action, and we have lost. The War in Iraq was ORIGINALLY treated like a police action, and we nearly lost that as well. Every single time we have treated a military action like a police action, we have lost.
Whereas by contrast we treated the first Gulf War as a military action and won. We treated Granada as a war, and we won. We treated WWII as a war, and we won. We treated Iraq after the surge like a war, and we won. Every single military action that has been treated like a war, we've won.
Every time we treat a war like a war and fight it like a war, we win. Every time we treat a war like a police action and place limitations on ourselves, we lose. This has been a consistent theme in American history.
And so in Afghanistan, you are suggesting that we treat the situation like a police action...
How do you think that's going to play out?
One more point... we've been losing the War on Poverty for the past 45 years. Should we give up because it's a failure, just like you think Afghanistan is?
Elliot
You made a statement... that we are losing in Afghanistan. By what measure do you make that statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Because the tribes MIGHT rally to each other when they are in trouble? They didn't during the first 5 years of the War in Afghanistan when everyone agreed that the Taliban were getting their collective butts kicked. What makes you think that if we put the assets in place and actually fight the war as it should be fought that they will now?
And assume for a moment that the tribes DID rally to their sides... something I find highly unlikely since it hasn't happened yet, despite 8 years of opportunity... why would that matter? Do you think that those tribes constitute enough people to make it matter? How many people do you think the Taliban have on their side in Afghanistan after all the excesses of their government?
Furthermore, just because some people might go over to the Taliban's side, does that mean that we are LOSING THE WAR? If so, it is a very new definition of "losing" that has not existed at any point in military history to date.
Again, please define what you mean when you say that we are losing in Afghanistan, especially given the concrete evidence to the contrary. It's all very nice and good to say that those measures don't count... but then what DOES count instead?
Elliot
I make the assessment by the same measure your own military makes the assessment. They have said they require more troops to avoid defeat because the enemy has escalated their campaign and they are being fought all over the country. What you fail to realise is that after eight years Afghanistan has not been secured and the ISAF and US forces now have a strategy to defend the towns. Once you we on the offensive now you are on the defensive and part of the problem is political. The Afghan government has no will for this fight they want you to defend them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You see Elliot you make the mistake of thinking that when you win a battle you win the war but your enemy doesn't make the mistake of meeting you in open battle, they strike and fade away forcing you into the situation we describe as "bush fire fighting"
What century are you living in, you lost, that's LOST, the war in Vietnam but then maybe you are confused and prepared to admit you are losing in Afghanistan. I am not suggesting Afghanistan be treated as a police action, I am suggesting that you leave Afghanistan without that final crushing absolute victory of killing the last Al Qaeda terrorist. You are in an action of diminishing returns and providing targets for the enemy because you fail to realise that Al Qaeda continues to fight there because you are there, the Taliban continue to fight there because you are there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You cannot win the war on drugs by naplaming the Columbian jungle. That drug supply is part of an internal conflict just as the supply of opium is part of an internal conflict in Afghanistan. If you want to win the drug war in Afghanistan convert the farmers to other cash crops but to do that you need the conflict to stop. The fact is your drug problem is part of the problem which your society represents and the solutions lie in your own land, spend you money on looking after your own population and not on fighting wars and you may see an improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
We can't win the war on drugs by ONLY getting at the source. That source will always shift. It will be like playing wac a mole. The inherent problem is human nature. Humans can get addicted, creating the demand; and as long as money is to be made, drug production, abuse, addiction will always occur. This is whether the drug is legal or not.
G&p
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM. |