Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY WE ARE LOSING THE WAR
boblonsberry.com ^ | 07/28/10 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 07/28/2010 6:33:15 AM PDT by shortstop

The United States hasn’t truly fought since the ninth of August in 1945.

As the radioactive dust settled over Nagasaki, and peace with Japan was secured, we gave up war.

We have not fought one since.

Rather, we have engaged in a half century of half measures, in which we have deployed our military repeatedly but never actually used it once.

That is not meant to disrespect the courage and accomplishment of two generations of American servicemen, but rather to acknowledge the failed leadership which has directed them. Since the police action in Korea, we have been led by successive waves of presidents, secretaries and generals who have assured us that there is a “new” way to wage war, and that new realities demand new strategies.

Seldom has a more false or dangerous philosophy been forced upon a nation and its people.

Because there is nothing new about war.

In fact, war is one of the oldest and must unchanging aspects of human history. It is what it is and what it has always been, and any nation that ignores that fact will suffer and fail.

As America has failed on the field of battle since they signed the papers on the deck of the Missouri.

We died for the status quo in Korea, we lost a decade in Vietnam to see it fall to the communists, we went to Iraq to leave a dictator in power and to return a dozen years later to fight a stalemate with tribal savages, and now our nation’s longest conflict is in an Afghan hellhole where we have lost our sons and the battlefield initiative.

We have tactical ability, but strategic stupidity.

We send Americans to fight in a decidedly un-American way, with one arm tied behind their back, hamstrung by pacifist notions and without a strategic objective.

We build nations and win hearts and minds and, truth be told, we have never done either or come anywhere near close. We have been milked of our money and robbed of our blood and hated all the more for it.

We are the world’s lone remaining superpower and yet we were held off by any number of Iraqi neighborhood militias and every Afghan with a beard and a rifle.

Because we are not at war.

Because American leaders lack the stones to go to war. They have the arrogance to start one, but not the grit to fight one.

So we only went so far in Korea, and we surrendered everything we won in Vietnam, and we stopped at Baghdad’s front door, and we sent our troops to cultural-awareness class, and now we restrain them with rules of engagement that have killed hundreds of our troops.

Let me repeat that: There are hundreds of Americans who have perished in Afghanistan and Iraq who are dead because ridiculous, spineless, treasonous rules of engagement left them unprotected.

Even today, in Afghanistan, considerations for protecting civilian lives and currying the favor of locals are given higher priority than considerations for protecting American troops.

If American troops come under attack from a building or village, they may only return fire if they are reasonably certain there are no civilians in that building or village. If they fire, and civilians get hurt, they get in trouble – they may even face prison.

What has this done? Taught our enemy to hide among civilians, and made our troops reluctant to fight back.

In war, if a building or a village fired on American troops, it would be destroyed by artillery fire or air support.

Could civilians get killed?

You bet.

Would Americans be protected?

You bet.

Would it be worthwhile?

Absolutely.

And in short order the civilians would turn against the bad guys, knowing that their presence brought danger. Instead of hiding and supporting the enemy, as Afghans do now, they would turn against them.

Why?

Because they would fear us more than they fear them.

That is war. When Sherman marched to the sea, when the allies bombed Dresden, when we lit up Hiroshima, there were civilian casualties.

And that was the point.

Wars are never between militaries, they are always between societies. And the society that tolerates or supports our enemy is our enemy.

Wars are not won through good deeds, they are won through death and destruction. Peace lies on the far side of victory, and there is no peace until one side claims victory. And our side cannot claim victory because our side will not fight.

Instead, we pretend that by turning our troops into babysitters and welfare agents that we can “win the hearts and minds” of “the people.”

That has been America’s wartime strategy and tactic since Korea, and it has failed in every instance.

Because it is not war.

It is weakness.

And the weak side does not win war, the strong side does.

War is a hellacious, terrible thing. Great efforts should be made to avoid it.

And it should only be commenced if it is going to be concluded. It is a fish-or-cut-bait enterprise, and the nation that will not fight will not win.

Worse, it will merely shed the blood of both itself and its opponent. It produces destruction but not resolution, all of the evil, but none of the good.

And that is how America has fought for the last half century.

It is a shame, a sad demonstration of the foolish belief that history can be ignored. And as the president and his Pentagon are now escalating the Vietnam of this generation, we can only expect the outcome of the Vietnam of the last generation.

We will fight and bleed and lose.

Because we will not truly fight.

It’s like the T-shirt says: Go big or go home.

Unfortunately, it is likely we will do neither, and likely our nation will suffer as a consequence.

The United States hasn’t truly fought since the ninth of August in 1945.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lonsberry; warafghanistan
Something is pretty wrong when the world's greatest super power can't easily defeat a bunch of 9th century goat herders. If you are not playing to win, don't play! As Rush says, "war is all about killing the enemy and breaking things."
1 posted on 07/28/2010 6:33:21 AM PDT by shortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Rather, we have engaged in a half century of half measures, in which we have deployed our military repeatedly but never actually used it once.

As a combat vet myself, I whole heartedly agree with this...

2 posted on 07/28/2010 6:35:43 AM PDT by NMEwithin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Al Quaeda and the Taliban come out at night like vermin to set road side bombs. They know they can not fight face to face with an American, British or other solider. We are also fighting liberals who don’t want us to kill the enemy and break things.


3 posted on 07/28/2010 6:36:47 AM PDT by LottieDah (If only those who speak so eloquently on the rights of animals would do so on behalf the unborn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

“If you are not playing to win, don’t play!”

######

We haven’t fought that way since WW II.

If our enemies were smart, they would realize that and take heed.

Our still VERY potent iron fist, is swathed in many layers of political correctness, moral relativism and misplaced disdain for good old fashioned judgmentalism.


4 posted on 07/28/2010 6:36:52 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

He said what every Admiral or General knows is true, but won’t say it.


5 posted on 07/28/2010 6:37:43 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

The United States has not been right militarily since the election of a combat-screw up, John F Kennedy.


6 posted on 07/28/2010 6:42:09 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Nuke Iran and Pakistan off the map and threaten the “holy” sites of Islam. After the initial shock wore off, the world would grouse but secretly be grateful.


7 posted on 07/28/2010 6:45:34 AM PDT by qwertypie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Preaching to the choir, babe...


8 posted on 07/28/2010 6:49:30 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

We have tactical ability, but strategic stupidity.

************************

As a French officer observed of the British army in the 1700’s “They are an army of lions, led by asses.”


9 posted on 07/28/2010 6:56:28 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Strange, isn’t it, that the USA seemed to lose its ability to win a war, just when it developed the ultimate means to do so. That’s always bothered me because, on the face of it, it doesn’t make sense.


10 posted on 07/28/2010 7:00:33 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Something is pretty wrong when the world’s greatest super power can’t easily defeat a bunch of 9th century goat herders.

***************

Genghis Khan was able to do it - outnumbered, and equipped with ponies, bows and arrows - but with superior resolve and doctrine.


11 posted on 07/28/2010 7:02:18 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Depends.

There are only a couple of tribes that support the Taliban. Wiping them out would eliminate most of the Taliban’s supporters and make a good example for the rest of the tribes. But, if done right, this would probably involve wiping out those entire tribes, man, woman, and child. You want to ask our troops to do that?

Neither do I.

Normally, I’d suggest that we get the Afghanis to do it, but I doubt they could. Afghani troops have proven both inept and corrupt. And, as someone else mentioned, the Taliban is usually ahead of them in the “OODA” loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop). By the time our Afghani allies get to the “Decision” part of the loop, the Taliban has usually acted, for instance sending a suicide bomber to eliminate their leaders.


12 posted on 07/28/2010 7:03:08 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Our history shows it is pretty clear. Without a Congressional declaration of war, the nation is not united. WW II united the nation, other conflicts since have caused divisions. Divisions prevent 100% all out pursuit of victory. Presidential Constitutional work bypasses for police actions, supporting UN resolutions, or 9/11 speeches does not do the job. You want 100% wars, then get 100% support. A draft would be unheard off today.


13 posted on 07/28/2010 7:05:28 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Strange, isn’t it, that the USA seemed to lose its ability to win a war, just when it developed the ultimate means to do so. That’s always bothered me because, on the face of it, it doesn’t make sense.

*******************

Kremlin 1 - D.C. 0


14 posted on 07/28/2010 7:06:00 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Very good points.


15 posted on 07/28/2010 7:07:34 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
...We pretend that by turning our troops into babysitters and welfare agents that we can 'win the hearts and minds' of 'the people.'

That has been America’s wartime strategy and tactic since Korea, and it has failed in every instance.

All policy crap from some liberals rear-end.

Take the fight to them, night and day. Do it with the Buff and the Spirit, the Lancer and the Eagle, the Hornet and the Tomahawk. Take it to the heart of their kingdoms. We have no friends there and never will. Make them yell uncle and then give 'em some more, for a few additional weeks. They respect real power and they haven't seen it really used anywhere in the two wars we are fighting. This is all about a golden goose for how many hundreds of contracters (and the big cut in it for the politicians - not to get off topic, but you can include healthcare in that mix too.)

Give 'em a good beatdown. I think most Americans would say that is what's needed.

Just my 2 cents.

WAKE UP AMERICA




16 posted on 07/28/2010 7:09:25 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

But, if done right, this would probably involve wiping out those entire tribes, man, woman, and child. You want to ask our troops to do that?

**************

In the end, it is them or us with regard to jihad. This is a mere opening skirmish in the end game of Islam versus Everyone Else.

Yes.


17 posted on 07/28/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Oh, American leaders still have the stones to go to war. The war just has to be against American citizens and the constitution.


18 posted on 07/28/2010 7:17:50 AM PDT by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Everyone seems to forget that we once defeated an insurgency led by Islamic extremists—the Moro War of 1902-1917, which was fought on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. Of course, in those days, we didn’t have Washington-based liberals laying down “rules of engagement.”


19 posted on 07/28/2010 7:26:47 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

This is a sadly brilliant piece.


20 posted on 07/28/2010 7:31:31 AM PDT by pepperdog (As Israel goes, so goes America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NMEwithin

Instead of fighting to win and that means killing the enemy in large numbers (not politically but strategically correct) the US and other countries (like Israel) have been waging not war but “conflict management”. Due to this concept, the good guys draw a stalemate at best...


21 posted on 07/28/2010 7:31:35 AM PDT by Netz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

As long as we allow Congress to run these wars and not the military, things will always be this way.


22 posted on 07/28/2010 7:35:55 AM PDT by Houmatt (Yes I CAN say it: Obama wants to be a dictator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Netz

Which in the long run results in inexorable defeat.


23 posted on 07/28/2010 7:41:05 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Bump for later.


24 posted on 07/28/2010 8:00:28 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LottieDah

“We are also fighting liberals who don’t want us to kill the enemy and break things.”

I was briefly exposed to the NBC nightly lies last evening, where they were trying to portray Gen. Mattis as some sort of bloodthirsty killer for his 2005 comments about enjoying killing the Taliban. As though his demeanor was some sort of bad thing.

Well, the next thing I know I’m yelling at the TV, which usually happens when the network spin comes on. What is it that liberals don’t get about the military and war? I WANT a general who loves killing pukes like the Taliban. I WANT that killer personality in charge of my armed forces. I want him on a tight leash in peacetime, but in time of war, I want him to lay waste to my enemies and leave them, as General Phil Sheridan said “nothing but their eyes to lament the war.”

That’s what war is. It is a nasty brutal business. I want the guy who enjoys his job to go do it with gusto. Once upon a time we had guys like Sherman, Sheridan, Patton and LeMay, who knew what war was and how to win it. Now the left will do all it can to emasculate them.


25 posted on 07/28/2010 8:05:39 AM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
We DID defeat them. We destroyed their government.

We should have then pulled out.

WHAT in the WORLD constitutes “victory” in this extra-constitutional escapade started by one globalist President and pursued by a second????

Keeping Americans in Afghanistan, fighting and dying and expending American dollars until WHAT??? The Afghans become 21st Century democrats????? NEVER HAPPEN. Not unless they are FORCED to abandon Islam and good luck THERE.

Maybe Genghis Khan could accomplish that with HIS tactics, but we can't with ours.

The BEST tactic for the U.S. to follow in dealing with Islamic fanatic states which aid, abet and harbor Islamic terrorist is to go in with MASSIVE military power, fight the kind of total destructive Bliztkreig needed to destroy the culpable government and that nation's entire infrastructure, then PULL OUT. Let the SAUDIS pick up the tab for repairing the mess. Message delivered!!

Do this often enough and thoroughly enough and these lunatics will learn that the cost of harassing us is simply unbearable - and that lesson will be delivered with MINIMAL loss of AMERICAN lives and loss of American dollars.

Trying to OCCUPY one of these Islamic Hellholes and reform the natives is a waste of American lives and dollars and doomed to failure, while tying our military up and preventing their more effective employment in other more pressing theaters - like the Mexican Border, or - perhaps Iran or even Korea.

26 posted on 07/28/2010 8:09:11 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Thats what USSR did for many years there.. including using air explosive ordnance to “clear” villages, exterminating kids if the felt like it etc. For practical purposes they had same means but in addition to that complete disregard of casualties (their own as well as civilian). I guess they could have started nuking the place down, that is the only thing they did not do.


27 posted on 07/28/2010 8:12:26 AM PDT by dimk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

“Of course, in those days, we didn’t have Washington-based liberals laying down “rules of engagement.”

And THAT is the whole point of my last post. Americans today have not the got the stomach for a protacted conflict, nor the will to employ the kind of brutal tactics needed to succeed in dealing with fanatics.

The only way is the Blitzkreig model.

We use our superior military technology to inflict massive, unbearable losses, destroy their government and infrastructure, then pull out before our guys can suffer the kind of protracted losses the public won’t sustain and which are bound not to succeed in converting these animals into modern day republican type citizens.


28 posted on 07/28/2010 8:14:46 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

“There are only a couple of tribes that support the Taliban. Wiping them out would eliminate most of the Taliban’s supporters and make a good example for the rest of the tribes. But, if done right, this would probably involve wiping out those entire tribes, man, woman, and child. You want to ask our troops to do that?

Neither do I.”

This may come as a shock, but yes, I DO want us to do that. Because it needs to be done. You can live in a world where everyone despises you for your weakness and walks all over you, or despises you but $h!+s their pants out of fear of your retaliation. I’ll take #2 any day, and you don’t get there without killing people. Period.


29 posted on 07/28/2010 8:17:10 AM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: henkster

And I thought I was bloodthirsty...
Soldiers must live with themselves long after the war is over. And we must eventually bring them home. War sucks enough as it is; I don’t want to compound with a bunch of “Section 8” casualties. That is why, if they were competent, I’d use Afghanis. They wouldn’t have much problem with this... and I wouldn’t care.


30 posted on 07/28/2010 8:45:00 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dimk

I think the Soviet efforts were haphazard and slipshod. Historically, Russian military strengths excel in the areas of endurance and overwhelming brute force at a given location - ill suited to suppression of generalized and irregular resistance. As I posted earlier, Genghis Khan was able to make the place a bed of carrion and contented ravens by means of bows, arrows and ponies. Afganistan is not unbeatable. No nation or people is.

The US and its predecessor colonies have a lengthy and effective history of exterminating tribes. We have the knowledge and the material ability to do so again. We lack the will. Lacking the will we have rejected victory and embraced defeat. Having embraced defeat we should cut our losses and leave. Our troops are few and precious. They are our people. Obama watches them die with the same cold satisfaction with which he delayed the implementation of BAIPA. He is what he is.

Strictly speaking, Afganistan is largely irrelevant except that we have been sucked into a war of attrition on a third world patch of rocks and dirt in the middle of nowhere. Our principal foreign enemies are the two rival leaders of the Islamic world - Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran. These are the two powers we - or someone - must eventually dispatch. Islam declared war on the entire world centuries ago. This war will continue until Islam’s ultimate triumph or its final extinction. Islam could be tolerated in the days of jezzails and scimitars. In the days of nuclear and biological weapons, the ability to tolerate this last relic of the Dark Ages is ended, or else we are.

Man, woman and child. Theirs or ours.


31 posted on 07/28/2010 8:57:43 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Well said.


32 posted on 07/28/2010 8:59:38 AM PDT by alarm rider (The left will always tell you who they fear the most. What are they telling you now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

IMO, before that. Truman and the UN in Korea.


33 posted on 07/28/2010 9:00:44 AM PDT by alarm rider (The left will always tell you who they fear the most. What are they telling you now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Total agreement with your post #26.


34 posted on 07/28/2010 9:01:19 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

BTTT


35 posted on 07/28/2010 9:24:20 AM PDT by Thunder 6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I think we are both “bloodthirsty” the way Ulysses S. Grant was. Grant saw the only means of ending the Civil War was to crush the Army of Northern Virginia, and not dick around with the job the way his predecessors with the Army of the Potomac had. His Overland Campaign of 1864 was enormously costly to both sides, but it was better than the interminable slow bleeding that the war had already inflicted. And it resulted in victory.

Another example of the historical arguments brought up by namby-pamby liberals is over the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese. They claim the Japanese were ready to surrender and we just dropped the bombs because we were racists and wanted to intimidate Stalin. What the liberals don’t take into account, and was brilliantly argued by Richard Frank in his book “Downfall,” is that the bombs saved lives. JAPANESE lives. Because the Japanese were NOT ready to surrender, and could have dragged the war through the winter of 1945-1946. Our blockade and strategic bombing campaigns were so successful that had the war dragged on even another 90 days, MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have died from famine and disease.

I don’t like war. I don’t want war. I did not believe we should have gone to war in Iraq; that was W’s way of taking care of daddy’s unfinished business and not a true military mission.

But if provoked to war, you go the most destructive brutal route you can right out of the starting gate because you will need to resort to shocking brutality sooner or later if you want to win. Might as well get it over with immediately and not prolong everyone’s agony. In the long run, the quick brutal solution is actually the most humane to our troops and to the enemy.


36 posted on 07/28/2010 9:35:22 AM PDT by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Thanks.

And that is an AWESOME psalm. I never read that one before.
There is much wisdom in that prayer.


37 posted on 07/28/2010 10:16:00 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Russians have built massive land empire by being really good at subjugating native populations.

What has changed? I think by 1970s USSR army just as most modern armies has gotten soft to a degree. It could still slaughter anyone and anything with complete lack of remorse but it’s soldiers now commonly drawn from relatively comfortable environments like cities just could not handle fighting a war in a forbidding place like Afganistan.

Mongols were some of the most hardened (mentally and physically) people to ever exist. They have conquered most of Eurasia by being that. Able to ride dusk till dawn they moved far above the speed of the modern blitzkrieg, they required no supply train, no tent, no sleeping bag. They did not even need to cook their food. They were also killers from very young age able to inflict personal brand of terror that few people now have stomach for. The most hellish outpost manned now in Afganistant would be something where Mongol would feel completely comfortable and at home. Lack of water and food, constant killing, desease thats was their life from beginning to the end. There was no home to go to, “after the war” or troop rotations.


38 posted on 07/28/2010 10:48:17 AM PDT by dimk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
You want to ask our troops to do that?

Don't ask, just use really big bombs, from remote control bombers, or use tactical long range missiles.

39 posted on 07/28/2010 10:58:19 AM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dimk

I don’t disagree.

I often wonder about the softening effects you mention. Perhaps civilizations by definition are too soft to survive, without periodic collapse and rebuilding.

I agree on the relative softness of the 1970s Soviet army, compared to their fathers. However, “Viktor Suvorov”, a Soviet defector wrote some interesting books in the latter days of the Cold War. I cannot remember if it was in “Inside the Aquarium” or “Inside the Soviet Army”, but he addressed the issue of urbanized softness. He claimed the veneer of civilization only lasted a few weeks when one was put into bare bones survival mode. He described the re-emergence of feral behavior, logic and perceptions in the course of a survival and evasion exercise.


40 posted on 07/28/2010 11:03:20 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (The bureaucrat is the natural enemy of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Soldiers must live with themselves long after the war is over. And we must eventually bring them home.

As opposed to being brought home in a bag, thats your solution?

Harry Truman didn't even know we had a nuke, but before the Roosevelt Commie staff could get his head right, he ended the war.

What he did next, in Korea, show's exactly who sets our nations policy concerning war.

41 posted on 07/28/2010 11:21:55 AM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

If it were up to me, I’d pick a tribe, use it to destroy its neighbors, then another, then another. Eventually you end up with a few tribes in charge, which also might make Afghanistan more governable...
The trick would be to get ahead of the Taliban on OODA loop - hit them before they react.


42 posted on 07/28/2010 1:16:50 PM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
The point everyone is missing is, the fight has moved on. Invading Afghani when we did, and overthrowing the Taliban, was fine. Nation-building has wasted our time. In the meanwhile, the enemy has morphed into a subversive force under the control of the Pakistanis, specifically the Paki intelligence agency. The "war in Afghanistan" will be at best an inconclusive stalemate unless and until we realize that Pakistan is now the enemy, not an ally.

Over these long years, the whole playing field changed under our noses, while we were so invested in trying to build an Afghan government and get out, we didn't notice. Even if we did try to wipe out the offending tribes, it wouldn't make any difference. Taliban has cover from elements of the Pakistani government now. They don't need the Pashtun huts in Indian country anymore.

43 posted on 07/28/2010 2:09:37 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson