Posted on 08/26/2009 8:10:35 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Afghanistan is Barrack Husseing Obama’s meatgrinder for the US Military.. Slaughter and demoralize .. That’s fits him to a T.
What I view as the largest problem is the government and people. You are right, I believe a large majority are satisfy to just move out of the way or are too weak or afraid to stand up to the Taliban/terrorists. I have said it before and will say it again, they need their Wild West days like America had in the mid and late 1800’s. Until they have their own people with a vested interest fighting against the bad guys, their country will never moved forward.
Using drone aircraft to patrol the mountains of Afghanistan and the lawless areas of Pakistan seems to me the best way to use our limited resources. We have made many successful kills of Taliban leaders with Hellfire missiles fired from drone aircraft.
The mounting fatalities on the ground are another matter. There is probably a better way to keep our ground troops away from ambush and roadside IEDs. Patrolling routinely encourages enemy ambushes that are hard to detect and suicide bombers against fixed installations.
The lasting lessons of warfare require that to win means destroying the enemy’s will to continue fighting by massive use of firepower (usually delivered from the air) that destroys civilian housing and civilians on a massive basis. Otherwise, the war will last many generations as the Taliban have an unlimited supply of martyrs.
Bush/Rumsfeld won two wars in incredibly short order. It is the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq that has proved to be difficult, and in my mind, not worth the cost. I believe we should use our military to strike fast, kick major butt, and get the hell out as quickly as possible. If we have to do it again two or three years later so be it. That would be cheaper in the long run than trying to impose democracies on archaic, theocratic populations that have no experience in, or desire for, self government. But back to my main point. We won both wars in a matter of weeks, not years.
It use to be that the oceans were a barrier to crazys...but that seems to be past.
If we leave them alone...they will multiply...
Here’s another question, because I take your assessment and am inclined to agree:
Given unlimited resources, what could be done to win?
“No empire ever collapsed because it got involved in Afghanistan.”
I did not say that Afghanistan was the sole cause of empires collapsing but the Soviet Empire ceased to exist one dozen years after occupying Afghanistan and the British Empire lost most of its colonies in the century following its failed Afghanistan adventure.
Not really. We’ve been concentrating our efforts in Iraq.
_______
Not really = Yes.
No = no.
While under Bush Afghanistan was a second front in an overall war on terrorism, it was not the primary focus
“The lasting lessons of warfare require that to win means destroying the enemy’s will to continue fighting by massive use of firepower (usually delivered from the air) that destroys civilian housing and civilians on a massive basis.”
Another lesson is that winning requires the will and the means to achieve some identifiable objective. What is the objective? Have we achieved it yet? If not, how much should we budget to spend in time, money, and lives?
I pray not - my 20 year old son is being deployed there in November. May God protect him and all those who serve there, even under the orders of our Socialist-in-Chief. 2010 & a new Congress can’t come fast enough!
The WH sees the “challenge” in Afghanistan in purely political terms. They will permit our military to do only what keeps up the President's popularity. So it is not about winning. This makes the political manipulation of the troops in Vietnam look grandly patriotic.
Please either do it or get out. I have three son in the military, one just returned from Afghanistan and it’s a scary place.
I agree, we have no real commitment to Afghanistan and they have not commitment to democracy. Why get our kids shot up for nothing!
I think O wants the war to keep going so he can stretch out our military and start his own national brown shirts to control the population without interference from the real military.
I so agree with you. He is putting generals in charge that have no intention of winning a war.
I honestly believe they are using Afghanistan to train our military. I don’t believe that we will accomplish a dam thing over there. Except..........getting our kids killed. Get out of the Middle East .......period. I honor our troops, but time has come to get out.
I harbor the same emotions. There is a much larger problem, IMO: the political will to do what is necessary is nonexistent. The only way to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban is to deal with them as ruthlessly as is necessary. The Obama Administration and the REMFs in the Pentagon are not up to the task.
By wanting to be "liked" around the world, they are needlessly putting your sons at risk, and by extension the entire country.
I'm certainly no military expert, but the focus should be on intelligence gathering, and locating the bad guys by flooding the airspace with drones, and max use of our satellite capabilities. Once a target has been acquired, let loose with the bunker busters.
On the diplomatic side, make it exceedingly painful for countries who pay lip service to fighting terrorism.
Unfortunately, the political will to follow such a course of action is simply not there.
Sending our men and women into harm's way without a clear mission and definable objectives is a recipe for failure.
From an old "cherry jumper", I thank you and your family for your service to our country.
and this from today
“Four British Troops Die for 150 Votes”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6811537.ece
while bambi lounged on the beach and ate clams
You’re confused. Implicit in winning a war is the complete destruction of the enemy. Bush/Rumsfeld never achieved that. Hence, the continuing high level of military activity that followed the dismemberment of the standing Iraqi Army.
However, because there was no plan in place to find useful work for these people and Saddam’s Baathists, they had all the time in the world to form clandestive cells to continue to wage war on their US and Iraqi foes.
Not one lesson learned from Vietnam was observed in the so-called War on Terror.
In war, the winner is the last man standing. It really is not complicated.
Implicit in any conflict is accomplishing the mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq US forces accomplished their mission in short order. By your reasoning the Colonies lost their war with King George. By my reasoning they won. Get a clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.