West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate

[Gerald]

WEST POINT, N.Y. — For two centuries, the United States Military Academy has produced generals for America’s wars, among them Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, George S. Patton and David H. Petraeus. It is where President George W. Bush delivered what became known as his pre-emption speech, which sought to justify the invasion of Iraq, and where President Obama told the nation he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan.Now at another critical moment in American military history, the faculty here on the commanding bend in the Hudson River is deep in its own existential debate. Narrowly, the argument is whether the counterinsurgency strategy used in Iraq and Afghanistan — the troop-heavy, time-intensive, expensive doctrine of trying to win over the locals by building roads, schools and government — is dead. Broadly, the question is what the United States gained after a decade in two wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/world/at-west-point-asking-if-a-war-doctrine-was-worth-it.html?_r=1&hp

Note: May 27, 2012

[Skybird]

- It failed,
- in two wars,
- over a period of 11 years,
- led to two strategic defeats of the US,
- and is more expensive than the nation financially can afford, given the debts that already strangle it.

What more does one need to know for reaching an assessment...

[Bilge_Rat]

There is nothing wrong with the doctrine since it has worked in previous insurgencies, i.e Northen Ireland, Malaya, South Korea. It would also have worked in Vietnam if the US had not pulled out.

I would argue that the problem was one of application, US/UK/NATO tried to apply the doctrine on the cheap: too few men, too little money, just enough to keep the lid on. No clear goals going in on what the desired end state was and what type of regime would be preferable in Kabul or Baghdad.

[Skybird]

No.

Defining the objectives that are to be reached - is part of doctrine! The failure there is double-layered. First, one defined objectives on basis of a misled doctrine (Rumsfield), second one designed the doctrine in worrying ignorrance of realities, cultural realities in this case.

Objectives havew been there for the desirable endstate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Westwern-friendly regimes. American oil companies in highly influential psoition that allow them to control the flow of oil and have a word din all Iraqui oil trades. Both countries turning into "beacons of democracy", populations turning Wetsern in living style and values, apllauding the invaders.

Designing such objectives reveal a worryin g lack of education, underdtanding for cultural differences, and the nature of the people and the enemy whose places one was about to embark on.

Later came Patreus, who had developed counter-insurgency strategies at Leven worth for years. While it seemed as if he was successful (the Surge, and such), he also mfailied on realsing the longterm implications and the basic nature of the enemy he was up against and the nature of the battlefield (cultural environment) he was to fight in. I have quite some respect for POatreus, but I must say: he also failed in forming a realistic assessment of the environment.

The only way to turn both wars into successes would have been to totally destroy both countries and annihilate evertyhing moving inside of it. Total war against an enemy that lacks the weaponry and capacity to strike back with total war - he can only deliver terrorist pinholes, although these can unfold a delayed economic impact: the cost for increased security measures after 9/11, for example: these costs are extremely high. But attacks likje 9/11 cannot destroy a society. Instead, society more or less adapts to such attacks. See Israel.

Total war. Well, I think that never was part of the doctrine.

I see the problem on the political level: too many lobbyists and infantile idiots who have plenty of illusions about what war is and what it means, adn thus easymindedly order for wars since hallucinations is all they have about what their orders mean.

What did Bruce Willis said in this movie about a military coup in the US, in New York after an Islamic terror strike (the title just doe snot come to my mind)? In the German dub he says something like this: "War is no clean and tidy operation with a scalpel, but a full-powered blow with the two-handed broadsword. "

Too many infantile and naive poltical idiots who think they know this better. Esoecially frteinds of the concept of "humane warfare" are vulernable to this. I say diffeently. Once watr got started, term like "overkill capacity" and "excessive use of force" have lost any meaning.

The tolerance of the public for such terms is limited. Home support for a war wanes once the bodybags start to arrive at home. Military doctrine must take this into account, too. A warplan that stretches over years and decades, is a very stupid warplan. Wars of exhaustion may be in line with Asian concepts of war, but Western societies tick differently.

[Catfish]

This Marine made his point.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[MH]

This Marine made his point.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Nice read from the past.

So yeah countries go to war for self interests or when attacked while companies make loads of money.
In fact USA which sits alone on quiet continent does it more than any other country.
It saved Europe ass twice or maybe three times for profit and did lots of dirty jobs around the world as well because nobody else would, wanted or had the will to do it....and somebody made profit
Now question is is it good for you or not.
If you are German maybe not so much))) if you are American one would have to imagine alternative histories.

I agree though that last wars are screw ups as we all know by know.The only winners are armament makers and so on....so yeah it is them we have to blame.



................

[Stealhead]

There is nothing wrong with the doctrine since it has worked in previous insurgencies, i.e Northen Ireland, Malaya, South Korea. It would also have worked in Vietnam if the US had not pulled out.

I would argue that the problem was one of application, US/UK/NATO tried to apply the doctrine on the cheap: too few men, too little money, just enough to keep the lid on. No clear goals going in on what the desired end state was and what type of regime would be preferable in Kabul or Baghdad.

How can you say that our efforts in Vietnam worked when we had been be using them since the late 50's and had some advisers in combat from 1961 our strategy failed miserably in Vietnam we spent over ten years trying to fight the insurgency in one way or another and failed.

[the_tyrant]

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a joke.

It seems like most people think it's all for profit, yet where is the money?!

Cortez, Clive, and Rhodes were for profit. A war where your military expenditure is higher than the GDP of the country you are trying to "conquer" is a failure.

Yet, everyone still says those wars are for profit. Come on now, if you are going to suffer the reputation loss, you might as well engage in real gunboat diplomacy. You know, the kind that TURNS A PROFIT

[Stealhead]

Well the arms maker always profits when his weapons are being purchased.

[Bilge_Rat]

How can you say that our efforts in Vietnam worked when we had been be using them since the late 50's and had some advisers in combat from 1961 our strategy failed miserably in Vietnam we spent over ten years trying to fight the insurgency in one way or another and failed.

Depends how you look at it. Even though the U.S. was blundering around and had only a vague inkling of proper counterinsurgency warfare, by the end of Tet, the South Vietnamese Vietcong was essentially destroyed and the insurgency could only be fed by sending down North Vietnamese guerillas/regular troops. Even then, it was not enough to win unless the NVA invaded with conventional forces (i.e. the Korea 1950 scenario). The first invasion in 1972 failed because the ARVN was backed up by U.S. air forces, the second one in 1974-75 succeeded once all U.S. forces had left.

The U.S. could have won if they had kept troops there. However, Vietnam would now look like South Korea, with U.S. troops still stationed along the DMZ. The U.S. was winning in 1968 and could have "won" the war if they had the political will to see it through.

[Skybird]

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a joke.

It seems like most people think it's all for profit, yet where is the money?!

Cortez, Clive, and Rhodes were for profit. A war where your military expenditure is higher than the GDP of the country you are trying to "conquer" is a failure.

Yet, everyone still says those wars are for profit. Come on now, if you are going to suffer the reputation loss, you might as well engage in real gunboat diplomacy. You know, the kind that TURNS A PROFIT
Has it ever come to your mind that the profit, financially as well as otherwise, is not as big as hoped for ten years ago - because both wars were not successful, but failures? ;)

Afghanistan was retaliation, and using the opportunity to establish a permanent presence to entangle Russia in that part of the world, and China, and to overshadow a planned vital pipeline project in the region.

Iraq was not to steal oil, fill it in bottles and smuggle it out of the country, as it is sometimes depicted. It was about gaining a dominant military position, pleasing business interests of Carlyle Group and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts (favouring American companies), and flow of oil traffic patterns (also to hinder China).

When Baghdad was taken, many plunderings took place, in hospitals as well as museums. Hospitals waited long to get protection from mobs as well. Most of Iraqi artifacts in museums were stolen and taken out of the country meanwhile. But the top priority objective to take was - the offices of the oil ministry and securing the pools of business papers and documents there. That says it all.

Subcontractors of Carlyle and Halliburton got profits in return for sure, financially, and as well as in influence, insider information, contracts. These profits just are not as big as the gang around Bush had planned. And the costs for the taxpayer to finance their little corporate war also derailed a bit, can one say that? For America as a whole, the thing is a negative bill. For some companies linked to those who organised the adventure, it was profitable nevertheless, I would say. And for mercenary companies. And for arms makers.

[Carthaginian]

Like Vietnam, the political will to fight a WAR is not there; our politicians want to fight a "war" to prevent offending groups of people who hate us in the first place. The battle against the enemies we are fighting (and not fighting) in the Middle East are not being 'lost' on the field of battle... they are being lost on Capital Hill.

When I was arrived Iraq in 03-04, we had a 'no call' policy; if we considered ourselves in danger, we could open fire without calling for approval. We were required to call for permission for certain things, and forbidden from entering into or firing upon mosques.
By the time I left, the 'wiser heads' in Washington had decided that we were to call for approval to engage... even if taking fire. That's not being at war; that's the same rules I operated under stateside while helping with Law & Order duties in the wake of Katrina.

You can't fight a war if you have to ask permission to fight back... or carry the fight to the enemy, for that matter.

If we had been sent to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan we could have (and did!) accomplished the goal in short order. We could have easily installed a friendly regime and then left, secure in the knowledge that our interests in the area were protected. We did not do this... and we are now paying the price.

My personal point of view- if you're going to go through the time and trouble to topple regimes hostile to you, you'd better follow up with the intention of making a regime that will support you... if not, it gets too expensive to justify.



Skybird - much, if not most, of the looting you speak of was carried out by the Iraqis themselves. This wasn't Kelly's Heros in reality.:down:

[Bilge_Rat]

Has it ever come to your mind that the profit, financially as well as otherwise, is not as big as hoped for ten years ago - because both wars were not successful, but failures? ;)

Afghanistan was retaliation, and using the opportunity to establish a permanent presence to Russia in that part of the world, China, and to overshadow a planned vital pipeline project in the region.

Iraq was not to steal oil, fill it in bottles and smuggle it out of the country, as it is sometimes depicted. It was about gaining a dominant military position,m pleasing busienss inerest of Carlyle and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts, and flow of oil traffic patterns.

When Baghdad was taken, many plunderings took place, in hospitals as well as museums. Hospitals waited long to get protection from mobs as well. Most of Iraqi artifacts in museums were stolen and taken out of the country meanwhile. But the top priority objective to take was - the offices of the oil ministry and securing the pools of business papers and documents there.

Subcontractors of Carlyle and Halliburton got profits in return for sure, financially, and as well as in influence, insider information, contracts. These profits just are not as big as the gang around Bush had planned. And the costs for the taxpayer to finance their little company war also derailed a bit, can one say that? For America as a whole, the thing is a negative bill. For some companies linked to those who organised the adventure, it was profitable nevertheless, I would say. And for mercenary companies. And arms makers.

so you think Iraq was invaded to boost the profits of Carlyle and Haliburton? :o yet another conspiracy theory spun by the pinkos at "Der Spiegel".

Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11. If Al Qeeda in all its wisdom had not butchered 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians, hundreds of which had to jump to their death to escape being burned to death, the neo-cons would have never had the green light to take out Saddam.

You want to blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq, blame Osama "he sleeps with the fishes" Bin Laden.

[Stealhead]

I look at Vietnam based on what happened to put it short.I would rather not derail this thread any further nor get into a disagreement with you about Vietnam.Even though one could argue that many mistakes made in Vietnam have occurred in our current wars which shows that we do not seem to fully learn from the mistakes of the wars that we do not win.

Also you are wrong about Iraq Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we invaded on the incorrect pretense that the Iraqi government was in any way related with Al Qaeda and that Iraq had chemical,biological,and nuclear weapons.If you believe the the Iraq War to have been fought over the reasons that you state then I can fully understand why you also view the Vietnam War as you do.

When did Al Qaeda show up in Iraq? In 2004.....Man Bush was not telling a lie about being preemptive was he?By the way that was after his Mission Accomplished claim.

Also 2,996 people died on 9/11 not 3000.

[Skybird]

so you think Iraq was invaded to boost the profits of Carlyle and Haliburton? :o yet another conspiracy theory spun by the pinkos at "Der Spiegel".
Where did you get that Spiegel-part?


Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11. If Al Qeeda in all its wisdom had not butchered 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians, hundreds of which had to jump to their death to escape being burned to death, the neo-cons would have never had the green light to take out Saddam.
You mistake Iraq for Afghanistan. The plan to wage war on Iraq had been developed by Wolfowitz before Clinton took over. Under Clinton it slept in some desk until Bush got elected and then decided to carry it out. Then 9/11 got in his way, and he had to delay Iraq for having a picnic in Afghanistan first. when the oicnic was over, the troops got shifted to Iraq again. And that was what enabled tzhe Taliban to come back - and this time in strength.

I cannot believe that this lie of that Iraq had its hands in 9/11 is still believed by some. What'S next - Elvis returning? Kennedy discovered to live incognito in Florida?

You want to blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq, blame Osama "he sleeps with the fishes" Bin Laden.No I blame Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perls, and the neocons, and I blame those who voted for this gang. Iraq was no war of need. It was no reaction to 9/11 because it got decided before 9/11. It was a war of desire.

[Stealhead]

I often wonder why many choose to ignore the No Fly Zones imposed on Iraq from 1991-2003 this was really a quasi war so in effect we never truly ended a state of combat with Iraq during the No Fly Zone times none of our aircraft where lost but they bombed many an Iraqi air defense sight.i can vouch for this I deployed on TDYs to Turkey many times and our aircraft left loaded with munitions every time they did not always come back with said munitions because they had bombed some Iraqi air defense related sight.I was not a bit surprised by the Iraq War part 3 they where just waiting for the right time.

[Bilge_Rat]

I look at Vietnam based on what happened to put it short.I would rather not derail this thread any further nor get into a disagreement with you about Vietnam.Even though one could argue that many mistakes made in Vietnam have occurred in our current wars which shows that we do not seem to fully learn from the mistakes of the wars that we do not win.

okeydokey. :DL

Back on topic, I am not sure the article has the right focus. The COIN doctrine used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e.: provide security, hunt for insurgents, push for reforms is tried and true and based on historical precedents.

For a long time, during Vietnam and especially afterwards, there was a strong resistance in the U.S. Army to being dragged into COIN warfare. Many thought the primary job of the Army was to fight conventional military forces, such as Iraq 1991.

Petraeus did not revolutionise COIN, he merely codified it and legitimised it to the point where it is now accepted as in the U.S. Army playbook. Iraq and Afghanistan do not show that the COIN playbook does not work

The article seems to focus more on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth it, which is a different topic altogether.

[Stealhead]

okeydokey. :DL

Back on topic, I am not sure the article has the right focus. The COIN doctrine used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e.: provide security, hunt for insurgents, push for reforms is tried and true and based on historical precedents.

For a long time, during Vietnam and especially afterwards, there was a strong resistance in the U.S. Army to being dragged into COIN warfare. Many thought the primary job of the Army was to fight conventional military forces, such as Iraq 1991.

Petraeus did not revolutionise COIN, he merely codified it and legitimised it to the point where it is now accepted as in the U.S. Army playbook. Iraq and Afghanistan do not show that the COIN playbook does not work

The article seems to focus more on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth it, which is a different topic altogether.



:hmmm: Did you read the same article?

"Colonel Meese***8217;s opposing argument is that warfare cannot be divorced from its political, economic and psychological dimensions ***8212; the view advanced in the bible of counterinsurgents, the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was revised under General Petraeus in 2006. Hailed as a new way of warfare (although drawing on counterinsurgencies fought by the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and the Philippines from 1899 to 1902, among others), the manual promoted the protection of civilian populations, reconstruction and development aid."


In other words they are using the same playbook and why bother discussing it when we already know that we are leaving just lie we did in Vietnam we already set the date all the insurgents must do is wait until that date they can more or less do nothing but harass us until then and say bye bye when we leave and then take over the country.That is a failure of COIN.

If you can not or are unwilling to commit to a CION effort which may take decades then do not get involved in the first place when by dong so you let the insurgency win because you set a date for when you will be leaving.

[Bilge_Rat]

Also you are wrong about Iraq Al Qaeda was not even in Iraq until we invaded on the incorrect pretense that the Iraqi government was in any way related with Al Qaeda and that Iraq had chemical,biological,and nuclear weapons.If you believe the the Iraq War to have been fought over the reasons that you state then I can fully understand why you also view the Vietnam War as you do.

When did Al Qaeda show up in Iraq? In 2004.....Man Bush was not telling a lie about being preemptive was he?By the way that was after his Mission Accomplished claim.


I thought you did not want to argue? :ping:

Everyone knows Saddam was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, that has been conclusively shown. However, if 9/11 had not occurred, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons would never have been able to get the political support needed to invade Iraq. That was only possible in the post 9/11 political climate when every politician was afraid to be seen as weak on terrorism.

Also 2,996 people died on 9/11 not 3000.

really? you are going to quibble about that? maybe I will go back to discussing Vietnam. :ping:

[Tribesman]

By the time I left, the 'wiser heads' in Washington had decided that we were to call for approval to engage... even if taking fire. That's not being at war; that's the same rules I operated under stateside while helping with Law & Order duties in the wake of Katrina.


That is because you were just involved in policing the place by then, which means don't upset the locals and don't make waves for whichever muppets are sitting in office

could have easily installed a friendly regime and then left, secure in the knowledge that our interests in the area were protected. We did not do this... and we are now paying the price.
Which friendly regime did you have in mind and how long do you seriously think they would hve lasted?


Bilge rat
Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11.
What the hell has Iraq got to do with that??????? :doh:

[Bilge_Rat]

:hmmm: Did you read the same article?

"Colonel Meese***8217;s opposing argument is that warfare cannot be divorced from its political, economic and psychological dimensions ***8212; the view advanced in the bible of counterinsurgents, the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was revised under General Petraeus in 2006. Hailed as a new way of warfare (although drawing on counterinsurgencies fought by the United States in Vietnam in the 1960s and the Philippines from 1899 to 1902, among others), the manual promoted the protection of civilian populations, reconstruction and development aid."

yes indeedee. :ping:

although I actually have more knowledge of COIN than just that article. :ping:

[Stealhead]

I bet you do ever fought in Vietnam?Iraq?Afghanistan?Ever commanded troops?Or do you just like reading books?

[Stealhead]

I thought you did not want to argue? :ping:

Everyone knows Saddam was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, that has been conclusively shown. However, if 9/11 had not occurred, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons would never have been able to get the political support needed to invade Iraq. That was only possible in the post 9/11 political climate when every politician was afraid to be seen as weak on terrorism.



really? you are going to quibble about that? maybe I will go back to discussing Vietnam. :ping:



You stated in a previous post:

"Iraq was invaded because 3,000 U.S. civilians were slaughtered like hogs on 9/11. If Al Qeeda in all its wisdom had not butchered 3,000 innocent U.S. civilians, hundreds of which had to jump to their death to escape being burned to death, the neo-cons would have never had the green light to take out Saddam.

You want to blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq, blame Osama "he sleeps with the fishes" Bin Laden."



Now you just contradicted that post do you expect anyone to take you seriously now?

Why not blame it on the Neocons if it was their idea all along?And in stead blame it on Bin Laden when if it was on the "game plan" it would have happened sooner or later 9/11 attacks or not.

[Stealhead]

In my opinion fighting a counterinsurgency with out having the commitment to see it through is dooming yourself to failure this type of war is liked because you can see that you are going to fail at it or realize that you are losing the political desire to see it through is not there then you can simply change the goal to allow you to pull out and appear to have "won" even though everyone knows that you failed and people sacrificed their lives toward a goal that had been set but changed in order to save face.And then the foe that you faced takes over when you are gone and he says "Thank God, Allah, Buddha,Carl Marx that wars require the political support of a nation because we would have never defeated them otherwise."

[the_tyrant]

Has it ever come to your mind that the profit, financially as well as otherwise, is not as big as hoped for ten years ago - because both wars were not successful, but failures? ;)

Afghanistan was retaliation, and using the opportunity to establish a permanent presence to entangle Russia in that part of the world, and China, and to overshadow a planned vital pipeline project in the region.

Iraq was not to steal oil, fill it in bottles and smuggle it out of the country, as it is sometimes depicted. It was about gaining a dominant military position, pleasing business interests of Carlyle Group and Halliburton buddies, and gaining decisive influence over how Iraw signs oil contracts (favouring American companies), and flow of oil traffic patterns (also to hinder China).

When Baghdad was taken, many plunderings took place, in hospitals as well as museums. Hospitals waited long to get protection from mobs as well. Most of Iraqi artifacts in museums were stolen and taken out of the country meanwhile. But the top priority objective to take was - the offices of the oil ministry and securing the pools of business papers and documents there. That says it all.

Subcontractors of Carlyle and Halliburton got profits in return for sure, financially, and as well as in influence, insider information, contracts. These profits just are not as big as the gang around Bush had planned. And the costs for the taxpayer to finance their little corporate war also derailed a bit, can one say that? For America as a whole, the thing is a negative bill. For some companies linked to those who organised the adventure, it was profitable nevertheless, I would say. And for mercenary companies. And for arms makers.

The mercenaries always profit. If there is no short term profit, they won't come here, they would just go to the next place. And of course, we can assume the same for gun runners.

From an American perspective, the payoff 10 years ago was much lower than it is now. 10 years ago Afghanistan was a wasteland, the GDP was only slightly more than 2 billion USD.

You can say that now the GDP is more than 17 billion USD. But in comparison, US military spending in Afghanistan each year is more than 8 billion USD. and that is not counting aid money etc, just direct military spending. You just don't bet on long term profit potential in a for profit war, you look to break even early.

I really don't see how you can expect to break even when the numbers are like that.

There are so many good examples that these stupid politicians can learn from: Cortez, Clive, Rhodes, and many more

Can these goddamn idiots learn? or did they start believing their "idealism" and now they think they are bringing "freedom" to Afghanistan?

[CaptainHaplo]

Armchair general's wisdom.... gotta love it.

The vast majority of you have never even pounded sand in a conflict area. Yet you want to debate "strategy" as if you have the answers.

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Let me share a dirty little secret with you. We are not at war. Haven't been at war since since September 2, 1945.

Now - are we in various conflicts? Sure we are - but the reason for them continuing as long as they have has not been because of profit motives - its been due to a political lack of will to actually fight them like they were a war.

Afghanistan and Iraq could be totally pacified in less than 60 days. The costs would be less than what we currently pay in the lives of our soldiers. The "collateral damage" however would be intentionally much higher. But no politician has the cahones to say its what we should do. Instead, they continue to tie the hands of those in conflict.

If its a war, you fight it like one. You think we cared how many casualties or "innocent lives" were lost in the firebombing of Dresden? How about Nagasaki or Hiroshima? How about Hamburg?

Our goal was maximum destruction - not only to take out the infrastructure, but to make it clear that we would stop at nothing to succeed. If it took massive civilian casualtes - well - thats unfortunately what war does. Now? We hold a civilian life higher than those of our soldiers who are there - purchasing a small modicum of freedom for them with the blood of our best. Call it whatever you want, but that ain't war.

Insurgencies survive because the civilian population allows, protects and enables them to. You can repress an insurgency through "surge" tactics, but you can't destroy it. The only way to destroy an insurgency is to destroy its civilian support. Win the hearts and minds? You can never win every single one - so its a doomed idea. So how do you undercut civilian support of an insurgency? You demonstrate that the cost of allowing it to exist is higher than the cost of rooting it out.

Insurgents will kill your family if you don't support them. How do you overcome that? Simple - you support them and its not just your family that gets killed - its not your whole block that gets flattened - its the entire neighborhood that goes away in the concussive waves of a carpet bombing campaign that levels 1/4 of a city.

Oh go ahead - spout the claptrap of how this will just create more militants. Guess what - when the civilian population figures out that they don't get clobbered until someone starts supporting the insurgency - they realize that the best security they can have is to keep the insurgency out of their cities, towns, neighborhoods and families.

Costly in human lives? Sure. Not ours though. But hey - thats war.

But don't worry - the idea of a politician supporting anything that would actually be cost effective and would work is anathema to the whole idea of politics - so it won't happen.

[Stealhead]

Well as I said we lack the political will to spend the decades that a counter insurgency requires(assuming that you do in the end "win") so why get involved in this kind of warfare in the first place?


If a nation lacks the will to commit to total warfare then they should not get involved a conflict in the first place.

Before you say anything you should know that I did spend time in Afghanistan and have two brothers that served in Iraq and Afghanistan as combat troops and officers
so I do have a direct opinion from those who fight.

[Tribesman]

Haplo is spouting the approach the French returned to.:doh:
It gives a small quick boost with lots of wider negative consequences then fails in spectacular fashion in very short order.

Its also an approach the Russians have tried repeatadly and failed at.
Saddam tried it...it failed
Turkey tried it ....it failed
Burma tried it...it failed
........the list is endless

Armchair generals eh...you gotta love it, so pathetic its almost funny:rotfl2:

[Skybird]

The mercenaries always profit. If there is no short term profit, they won't come here, they would just go to the next place. And of course, we can assume the same for gun runners.

From an American perspective, the payoff 10 years ago was much lower than it is now. 10 years ago Afghanistan was a wasteland, the GDP was only slightly more than 2 billion USD.

You can say that now the GDP is more than 17 billion USD. But in comparison, US military spending in Afghanistan each year is more than 8 billion USD. and that is not counting aid money etc, just direct military spending. You just don't bet on long term profit potential in a for profit war, you look to break even early.

I really don't see how you can expect to break even when the numbers are like that.

I am not sure on the GDP raise, but however:
Why do you rate the GDP of a hostile nation a profit for the US? Because more or less openly hoswtile Afghansitan will be once the troops are out and the taliban have taken over. That are the Taliban that after 10 years still could not be defeated.

And Karzai, is a corrupt and self-loving criminal himself.

[Skybird]

Let me share a dirty little secret with you. We are not at war. Haven't been at war since since September 2, 1945.


You are/were at war for sure. War is what war does. It's just that these two wars of the recent past have been fought quite incompetently, without the needed determination and long-lasting breath, and without realoistic visions and expectations. They both compare to dreamdancing, which is for the most, the very most, the fault of the political leaders. One thought, especially this unscrupellous idiot Rumsfeld, it would be easy-peasy. Iraq war was launched without the responsible political ranks even knowing what to do there once they were in Bagdhad - they did not even had a plan to care for the time after the field battle was over! High ranking representatives from many governmental offices and services reported that, saying that when they made consideraiton and hoped them to be mailed upwards in the hierarchy, any mentioning of ideas and plans were brought down.

And the troops, like in so many wars, were imagined to be back at home just in time for christmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_End_in_Sight

this movie was available at youtube, when it was released years ago. Unfortunately it no longer is, so it must be bought. But for anyone interested in the matter, this is a must. And an eye-opener.

Edit:
Uploaded again, here it is:

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSvHE9CpbXw

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2JnpUv3PTA&feature=relmfu

part 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-93617494053797724#

[CaptainHaplo]

You are/were at war for sure. War is what war does.

War requires a declaration of such by Congress. No such declaration has occured since 1942. It isn't a war otherwise.

Every single time we have deployed troops into an active combat situation since 1945, they have had their hands tied under ROE's that don't allow them to wage war. When 3 members of the military are courtmartialed because a killer of 4 US civilians gets a bloody lip, the ROE's are not warfighting - they are nannyisms.

War is what war does? By that arguement alone no conflict since WW2 has been a war - since no conflict has been fought with the pure intent to wreak maximum destruction upon the enemy wherever we may find him.

[Tribesman]

Yeah right:doh:


Definition of STATE OF WAR

1
a: a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war b: a legal state created and ended by official declaration regardless of actual armed hostilities and usually characterized by operation of the rules of war

2
: the period of time during which a state of war is in effect

[Skybird]

War requires a declaration of such by Congress. No such declaration has occured since 1942. It isn't a war otherwise.

Every single time we have deployed troops into an active combat situation since 1945, they have had their hands tied under ROE's that don't allow them to wage war. When 3 members of the military are courtmartialed because a killer of 4 US civilians gets a bloody lip, the ROE's are not warfighting - they are nannyisms.

War is what war does? By that arguement alone no conflict since WW2 has been a war - since no conflict has been fought with the pure intent to wreak maximum destruction upon the enemy wherever we may find him.
Your country labelled itself as being at war. Your leaders did. Your troops did. the events equal those in war.

You may have fought with wrong ROE, you may have fought for wroing reasons and without needed determination, you may have fought the war wearing glace gloves, okay okay I haqve coimplained about all that myself many times in the past ten years..

But war is as war does. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands got killed. It may have been smaller wars compared to WWII. But wars it were nevertheless. And the US lost both.

And you counter with an unimportant bean-counting formality, like a bureaucrat? :DL Should I really take that serious? Maybe you want to avoid listing two more lost wars in the US history, by denying that there have been any wars at all? Some kind of a Dolchstoßlegende, maybe? :D

BTW, both Bush and Rumsfeld told the world and the nation that the US were at war. Both said also that the US got attacked (9/11), and that that equals an act of war. Do you plan to file a lawsuit against them? Obviously they lied to your country and to your people then and needlessly ordered military action although there was no war. That would be a conspiracy that borders high treason, eh? Don'T count beans again, i know there is no High Treason paragraph, at least it was claimed in past debates, but we all have a relatively congruent idea of what we associate with the term, right?

P.S. The wars that are not wars. The torture that is not torture. The defeat that is not a defeat. Well, I see patterns emerging there. Cognitive Dissonance Theory, anyone? :D

[the_tyrant]

I am not sure on the GDP raise, but however:
Why do you rate the GDP of a hostile nation a profit for the US? Because more or less openly hoswtile Afghansitan will be once the troops are out and the taliban have taken over. That are the Taliban that after 10 years still could not be defeated.

And Karzai, is a corrupt and self-loving criminal himself.

Well when the anti war crowd and the left wing press claim that americans simply came in a exploited the country, east indian company style, so I was kindof tempted to list the GDP.

But the big difference is, after the battle of plassey, the east indian company quickly recouped their war expenses, demanding at first 22,000,000 rupees in war reperations. The concessions and taxation from a state that size is fully sufficient to cover the occupation.

That is a real for profit war.

Unlike the war in Afghanistan

[CaptainHaplo]

Your country labelled itself as being at war. Your leaders did. Your troops did. the events equal those in war.

And you counter with an unimportant bean-counting formality, like a bureaucrat? :DL Should I really take that serious?

P.S. The wars that are not wars. The torture that is not torture. The defeat that is not a defeat. Well, I see patterns emerging there. Cognitive Dissonance Theory, anyone? :D

So the actual rule of law should mean nothing because some bureaucrat, from the president on down, says so? Well - if that is the way you want to look at it - then ok. But then that means all the griping about "torture" need to be dropped because - after all - the "legality" doesn't matter. Either the rule of law holds or it doesn't. You can't claim that it doesn't one moment, then that it does the next - just because the yes or no side promotes or supports your viewpoint.

The Law of the Land says Congress must DECLARE War. It also defines very clearly how that must occur. That has not happened yet. Various laws and treaties state that torture is illegal. The definition of torture is interpreted differently by various people in what it allows and does not allow. Because there is no clearly defined "this is, this isn't" standard, there is debate on the topic.

You accuse me of using a politicians answer - I simply stand on what the Constitution states. You bring up Bush and 9/11 - look at 1941. Roosevelt gave his speech in which he said that a State of War existed between the US and Japan. Then what happened? Congress VOTED to declare war on Japan. Roosevelt saying it didn't make it legal - Congress did. Bush said a lot of things, and not every one of them was accurate. No "high treason" conspiracy theory there.

Ultimately this is simply a question of are you willing to bypass what the law says to follow the rest of society in blind acceptance of what the politicians tell you? Or are you willing to stand up and say "Hey, that isn't what the Constitution says". Since your not in the US or a US citizen, I can't expect you to have the same dedication to the foundation of our Nation. But don't for a minute think that such dedication is simply "politics as usual" on my part.

I can admit we have had abject failures in the conflicts we have been involved in. It has nothing to do with avoiding admitting "defeat". It has to do with being accurate and holding to the actual principals of this nation and its laws. If our politicians did that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the conflicts would have been drastically different.

[Skybird]

The events and actions, the engagements and investments made, the victims and sacrifices made, the pulbic bleief and opinion, the claims, the ways the nation acted: it all said WAR.

And while the event of war, two wars, unfolded, you engage in a lawyers defintion on whether the war actually was a war or not.

Like the conservatives here tried to avoid admitting that torture is being carried out when claiming that Waterboarding where no torture but robust interrogation or new interrogation.

Sorry, I don'T buy neither the one, nor the other.

And you also are wrong on the last sentence you said. Youi said that if your leaders followed the (formal) rules and principles of your nation, then the "conflicts" would be looking different today. I assume you m ean a formal declaration of a state of war. - No, they wouldn'T. They would have been approached the same way like they were. And mind you, everybody was considering it to be a war already.

It's just labels, where the content of something is what defines it'S essence. Another confusion about labels: war on terror. Not only is this label idiotic becasue terror is no enemy, but a tool of the enemy and you hardly would say that WWII was not a war against the Nazis, but a war against airplanes, or tanks. One needs to look at what makes the enemy the enemy, what motivates the enemy to use terror. You see Islam, and that the enemy beolives inw hat Islam teaches him. The war in terror is mislabeled, because in truth it is a war against Islam. Islam is the enemy here, and terror is only its weapon.

Well, anyhow, Iraq and Afghanistan are lost and come at a high longtermed strategic price. Iran comes out with stronger influence, Pakistan comes out with stronger influence. Now one has to live with the mess. Whether there was a formal declaration of war or not, is unimportant. You Americans tend to be offende dover Pearl Harbour, becasue the attack took place before you got a declaration of war. This I admit always makes me giggle. Not because you suffered losses there, hell, no. But becasue it is so absurd. The point is the Japanese made a decision for war - and you missed it, could not imagine it sufficiently, waited for a aper letter in your mail and were caught off your guard.

When it comes to the ammount of killing and destruction that war causes, formalities and diplomatic proceedings to give it a nice touch are meaningless. The Japanese made a decision (that America could and probbaly has expected), and stroke. That'S what you do in war. A leaf of paper - is meaningless then. Especially if for its delivery you would pay in additional blood of thy own.

It is no duel between noble gentlemen. No dresscode. No toppers and tailcoats. No polite phrases and witty smalltalk. No champagne bwefore and after. I have told you my favourite Musashi story before, haven't I? If not, I tell you again. That's how to fight, duel and war. Everything else is nonsense.

[Tribesman]

You accuse me of using a politicians answer - I simply stand on what the Constitution states. You bring up Bush and 9/11 - look at 1941. Roosevelt gave his speech in which he said that a State of War existed between the US and Japan. Then what happened? Congress VOTED to declare war on Japan. Roosevelt saying it didn't make it legal - Congress did. Bush said a lot of things, and not every one of them was accurate. No "high treason" conspiracy theory there.

The State of war already existed without Roosevelt making a speech or Congress voting anything.

The Law of the Land says Congress must DECLARE War
CAPS LOCK strikes, a declaration is irrelevant to the existance of a state of war.

Since your not in the US or a US citizen, I can't expect you to have the same dedication to the foundation of our Nation. But don't for a minute think that such dedication is simply "politics as usual" on my part.

Would that dedication be all encompasing as in seperation of church and state, or is it only dedication to the politics you like?

[CaptainHaplo]

That's how to fight, duel and war. Everything else is nonsense.

You fight to win a war - I think we agree there.
I also think we agree that the US has not fought to win - thus I take the position that it must not be a war.

You specifically avoided the whole "rule of law" point - either the law is followed or its not. You want to claim that its a war even though we didn't "follow the law" - then don't suddenly expect the US to "follow the law" in other aspects of this "war" - aka geneva convention, no torture, etc. Its a double standard.

[Skybird]

Lawyers fiught - at the UN - over some massacring goping on somewhere, and even when a whole culture is pout at risk and people gets killed by the hundreds of thousands in masacres, sometimes nations deny this to be "genocide" although all criterions of the Anti-genocide convention when to call a genocide a genciodie are fulfilled. Becaseu there is a internationally binding obligation to intervene when genocide is stated to happen by the UN body. And some nations for some reasons do not wish to get drawn into another conflict, and so avoid it by denying it to be genocide. Which means the obligation to intervene becomes not valid.

But it still is genocide what happens.

You put formal criterions over reality when saying the wars were no "declared" wars. You could as well say a fouling, smelling, rotten body is not dead as long as a formal official stamp on some medical form does not bureaucratically confirms that the foul, smelling rotten body indeed is dead. But it is dead nevertheless. It was dead, it is dead, it will remain to stay dead, and it will not suddenly rise from the dead and live again just because that form does not get signed and stamped.

What was done in these non-wars, what has been caused by these non-wars, walks like war, looks like war, behaves like war and make noise like war.

So it seems reasonable to say that actually it has been war for sure.

Or to quote some American colonel from around 2004 or 2005, who was filmed walking the scene in some Iraqi town and said in that TV docu (that we even had linked in this forum at that time): "If this is not a war, then I have no clue of what war should be then."