 |
That's because you haven't been paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
"Win" in the military sense means that we created a situation in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer a viable threat to the security and survival of Afghanistan or American assets in Afghanistan. It also means that Afghanistan becomes a place from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can not launch, support or aid terrorism or terrorist attacks, especially those against the USA.
Elliot
We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible. Afghanistan is too big and too much of a wilderness with too many unfriendly and uncooperative tribes to monitor every inch of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
And I bet you probably think talking to Ahmadinejad will convince Iran to end their nuclear program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Actually, considering that I used to live in the Middle East, I think I have a better understanding of the Middle Eastern mind than you do. It is from that perspective that I say that if we leave, we lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
From the perspective of the Arab, if we leave it is because we are either too weak or too decadent to fight, which is just another form of weakness. Weakness is something to be exploited. Weakness is an invitation to attack. Therefore, leaving would be perceived as an invitation to attack us again here as they did at 9/11.
Between 1987 and 2007, Israel made several attempts to "leave" the West Bank and Gaza. They had unilateral troop removals. They had peace accords. They had agreements. They even dismantled cities and forcably removed their own citizens from Gaza and the West Bank. The result of every single one of those attempts was increase violence by the Palestinians... more suicide bombings, more missile and mortar attacks, etc. The Palestinians were EMBOLDENED by attempts by Israel to avoid war. They viewed it as a statement by Israel that they were not willing to stand and fight, that they were too weak.
By contrast, when the Israeli military took action... when they raided Palestinian villages to take out known terrorists, when they destroyed the homes of terrorists, when they took strong military action, the Palestianians DECREASED the number of attacks against Israel.
The contrast is shocking... and very contrary to the "civilized" western mindset. But the incidence of terrorist attacks can be plotted on a graph, and the correlation between strong action by the Israeli military and a DECREASE can be easily demonstrated.
The same is true in virtually every Islamic country. The fundamentalist activity in any Islamic country INCREASES when people are trying to "talk" and avoid conflict or violence. It dramatically DECREASES when there are signs that someone is getting ready to, or when somebody actually does, take strong military action against the fundametalist elements.
Ahmadinejad of Iran is a perfect example of this. Under George Bush, we heard very little from him about his Holocaust denial or his desire to wipe Israel off the map or his "demand" to be allowed to set up a nuclear weapons program. He was relatively quiet when Bush was in office because he knew that Bush wouldn't blink twice at bombing his a$$. Oh, he made some occasional noises, but he was definitely NOT as bold as he is today... under a President who wants to "talk" and who's goal is to unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal. Since Obama took office, Ahmadinejad has made quite a few speaches denouncing Israel and swearing again to wipe them off the map, denouncing the Holocaust as a fraud, and has tested several different types of long-range missiles, as well as continuing and expanding his nuclear weapons program. That's because he knows that Obama won't do anything to stop him.
I could give lots of historical examples from Middle Eastern History since the 12th Century where this was true. Attempts at "peace" are not honored by the Arab, they are seen as weakness and are almost ALWAYS responded to by attack.
The bottom line is that you do not understand the Middle Eastern mind.
Leaving Afghanistan may be the correct thing to do for OUR OWN reasons. But don't ever think that it is the way to decrease attacks coming from the Middle East. It will, in fact, result in the exact opposite... an increase in attacks coming from the Middle East.
Only by being strong THERE can we be relatively secure here.
As for winning in Afghanistan, it CAN be done. People like to claim that nobody has ever been able to defeat the natives in the mountains, but that simply isn't true. The Mongols did it in the 13th century. The Hotaki Empire did it in the early 1700s. So did the Durrani Empire in the late 1700s. The Sikhs nearly did it again 100 years later. It has been done, and it CAN be done again. Especially when you consider that our soldiers are better trained, better educated, better equipped, and are in better physical shape than the soldiers of any other army in history... including the armies that accomplished these victories in the past.
So the argument that "we can't win in the Afghani mountains" is pure crap.
The Russians couldn't do it because they were poorly trained and poorly equipped and their leadership had no stomach for a fight and didn't send the proper resources to do the job. Instead, they made the mistake of maintaining a troop presence there without committing to winning the fight... kind of like Obama is doing now. With the Soviet system near bankruptcy, their war in Afghanistan became a huge drain on their economic resources... kind of like Obama is doing to us now. They also had to contend with the fact that WE were helping fund, equip and train the Mujahadeen, which was a factor that the Russians could not overcome without the proper assets in place. But with the right mindset and the proper allocation of assets, the Russians could have won the war, even with our interference.
As could we, if we are willing to allocate the proper resources and manpower and are willing to actually use the appropriate ROE.
The Afghani mountains are no insurmountable obstacle, and they do not make Afghanistan or the Taliban unbeatable. Don't fall for that boogeyman story. It just isn't true.
Elliot
Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks. That's why we cannot win. It has no location except in someone's head and heart. Even if we killed every resident of Afghanistan, we would not defeat terrorism.
You have just made Elliot's point. The problem is that getting Pashtans and Arabs to open their hearts and heads has always, since Suleman's time, been with your foot on their necks. They will not respect you enough to listen otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Further evidence can be found in any schoolyard. 13 year old American males have the same barbaric mindset. Sometimes Americans grow up. It's a shame grown up Americans so seldom enter politics.
So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Basically, why not? Tell us how else you deal with a group of people that think blowing themselves to smithereens to kill a few Jews and other infidels is a good and honorable thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The males are the ones who think that way, so let's get rid of them. The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not "Eastern," barbaric is what I said. Most societies that have not developed above tribalism, like 13 year old boys, only respect those with demonstrated physical superiority. I admit to a trace of it, and a glow-in-the-dark Hindu Kush wouldn't bother me at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Killing them all, however, seems a little extreme. Enough to demonstrate our physical superiority so they'll negotiate in good faith, which their culture considers foolish to do with a weak or decadent opponent, we should do.
Apparently so . The President has been advised by his commander on the ground that a new strategy involving more troops is needed. This is not the same as Vietnam where Gen. Westmoreland continuously asked for additional troops without recommending a new strategy. The military learned the lesson of Westmoreland's legacy ,and General McCrystal by all accounts is one of the best in the ranks. His performance in Iraq with the capture of Saddam and the hunting down of Zarqawi by his Joint Special Operations task force demonstrated it.Quote:
Just words?
Unlike Westmoreland he will not commit additional troops to a plan that will not succeed . He would resign first. He will also most likely step down if his request is denied.
So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach. You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose, you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.
Are you claiming to speak for a billion people spread across half the globe? The Muslim world is far vaster than the Arab, Pashtun, and Farsi speaking corner this discussion has been about.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I admitted to a trace of barbarism. I have lost friends to jihadists, and feel my anger and lust for vengeance is justified, but I do not let it rule me.
Your assuming generalities from specifics may prolong the argument, but will not win the debate.
The left often has trouble defining winning .I don't know... Perhaps it's the education system that discourages such concepts as winning and losing .
Anyway ;General McCrystal gave an answer good enough for me when he spoke to an audience at the International 'Institute for Strategic Studies'. He said when asked if he could support Biden's scale back plan :
“The short answer is: no,” ...“You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
International Institute for Strategic Studies Watch the Address
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...tan_98537.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/wo...pagewanted=all
Hard to tell what the President will do . Harry Reid gave him cover by delaying Gen. McCrystal's testimony before the Senate until the President returns from buying booze and hookers for IOC committee members .
You see... the Olympics are fun... Afghanistan seems too much like work .
Female Suicide BombersQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Interesting take. Back in the 1990s when the Taliban was in power the faux outrage by the left about the treatment of the Afghani women by them certainly made me believe that they would be happy steps were taken to remove them from power never to return .Quote:
The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.
But ;I guess I was wrong about that and their defense of the rapist sodomizer Polanski also.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I have never seen a dead terrorist set off a bomb, activate a suicide vest, or blow up a bus full of kids. Have you?
Having actually served in a military that was fighting terrorists LONG BEFORE 9/11, I can tell you for a certainty that dead terrorists can't kill anyone. The technique works quite well, actually.
However, what has failed repeatedly is the idea that "we can't win, no matter what we do, so we shouldn't bother."
Tell me, do you think that we should stop having cops because "we can never defeat crime... criminals have no location, criminal behavior exists in the hearts of the people"? The argument is exactly the same. Do we give up on fighting crime?
It is a foolish argument that fails every time.
Elliot
Nope. Just the ones trying to torture, rape, blow up and murder people in the name of Allah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And you object to this why?
Again, you are bringing up nukes. Why do you keep doing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The discussion in this thread, from the very beginning, has been about sending more ground troops and appropriate support, not nuking anyone.
Really?Quote:
You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose,
Do you really think that we're in favor of raping, torturing, murdering and blowing up people because they don't follow the correct religious practices? Is that the mindset that you think we have? Because that is the mindset of the terrorists.
Actually, gunboat diplomacy has nevger FAILED. It ALWAYS works if you are willing to use the guns on the gunboat and have bigger, better and more gunboats than the other guy does.Quote:
you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.
Where it fails (and where it failed in Vietnam) is when you are NOT willing to use the guns on the gunboat. And when that happens, the enemy will believe that they can get away with anything because you aren't going to use the guns. The proper response to this is a judicious but firm use the guns to prove that if pushed too far you will indeed use the guns.
Yep... thanks to Obama they know that to be true now. After he threw his allies, Israel, Honduras, Poland and the Chek Republic under the bus, the rest of the world does indeed see that America can't be trusted to honor a commitment to an ally AND that we are too weak-minded to defend ourselves with force.Quote:
You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.
Elliot
So what to you would mean a win?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 AM. |