Afghanistan

JALU3 · 03-14-09, 10:09 AM

Let me first say that when I was in, I did not have the priviledge to "go downrange" to "the sandbox". However, that doesn't mean, even though I am no longer in, that I don't have a vested interest in what is occuring there, or that I am no longer interested. If anything, I am still more connected then most in my country (seeing how only a small segment of the population actually has a direct connection to someone who serves, or is serving overseas), with family still wearing the uniform. With that said I thought I would bring up to everyone's attention to related articles regarding present US activities in Afghanistan.

The first is regarding General Perteaus' recent comments regarding the long term solution to the present situation in Afghanistan.

The second is about an individual who lost their life, in many ways, looking for the solution that General Perteaus was talking about (link fixed).

This is only a continuation of the Great Game, in an area that has defied outside definition, and force for hundreds of years.
Read. Comment. Discuss.

I hope that I can start this, as I haven't seen any threads in a while, that discuss the present situation in Afghanistan without it devolving into the usual 2 side of a coin yelling that many threads here in General become. Rather, all opinions are welcome, for in the end, any solution will most effect those who attempt to bring it about and the people in that land half a world away from where I post thus,

CaptainHaplo · 03-14-09, 10:20 AM

Jalus - the second link is the same as the first one. I have my own views and will share them in light of both articles you have asked us to read.

Platapus · 03-14-09, 11:50 AM

The questions I would like to ask President Obama are the same questions I would have liked to ask President Bush.

1. What is the objective of US involvement in Afghanistan?
2. How will we measure progress with regard to this objective?
3. What is the exit criteria? (for both success and failure)

CaptainHaplo · 03-15-09, 11:02 AM

Well that was an interesting read to say the least. Thanks Jalus.

Contrasting the two is interesting, as the intelligencia maintain there are ethical flaws in the concept, while the military is looking for any "leverage" they can use to be more efficient. I would counter saying that there are MORAL flaws in not trying to understand the various facets of the culture your dealing with. Failing to do so costs lives unnecessarily. What I found most enlightening however, was not what the second article said - but what it DID NOT say. It did not share the facts around this man's death. Was it in the course of him pursuing data? Was it an IED or firefight? We don't know. So part of the equation is missing.

Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one.

As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam.

To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers.

Skybird · 03-15-09, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one.

As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam.

To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers.

NeonSamurai · 03-15-09, 12:35 PM

Nicely summed up Haplo

CaptainHaplo · 03-15-09, 12:42 PM

Oh good lord - its the end of subsim as we know it - Skybird and me agree!

Actually - it just goes to show how mature this forum is in many ways. So many different views, but we all take each issue as its own. Good to see from us all.

BTW Skybird - I may want a rematch in the future at some point!

03-14-09, 10:09 AM	#1
JALU3 Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2007 Location: 11SMS 98896 10565 Posts: 756 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Afghanistan Let me first say that when I was in, I did not have the priviledge to "go downrange" to "the sandbox". However, that doesn't mean, even though I am no longer in, that I don't have a vested interest in what is occuring there, or that I am no longer interested. If anything, I am still more connected then most in my country (seeing how only a small segment of the population actually has a direct connection to someone who serves, or is serving overseas), with family still wearing the uniform. With that said I thought I would bring up to everyone's attention to related articles regarding present US activities in Afghanistan. The first is regarding General Perteaus' recent comments regarding the long term solution to the present situation in Afghanistan. The second is about an individual who lost their life, in many ways, looking for the solution that General Perteaus was talking about (link fixed). This is only a continuation of the Great Game, in an area that has defied outside definition, and force for hundreds of years. Read. Comment. Discuss. I hope that I can start this, as I haven't seen any threads in a while, that discuss the present situation in Afghanistan without it devolving into the usual 2 side of a coin yelling that many threads here in General become. Rather, all opinions are welcome, for in the end, any solution will most effect those who attempt to bring it about and the people in that land half a world away from where I post thus, __________________ "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One Last edited by JALU3; 03-15-09 at 02:51 AM.

03-14-09, 10:20 AM	#2
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Jalus - the second link is the same as the first one. I have my own views and will share them in light of both articles you have asked us to read. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-14-09, 11:50 AM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	The questions I would like to ask President Obama are the same questions I would have liked to ask President Bush. 1. What is the objective of US involvement in Afghanistan? 2. How will we measure progress with regard to this objective? 3. What is the exit criteria? (for both success and failure) __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-15-09, 11:02 AM	#4
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Well that was an interesting read to say the least. Thanks Jalus. Contrasting the two is interesting, as the intelligencia maintain there are ethical flaws in the concept, while the military is looking for any "leverage" they can use to be more efficient. I would counter saying that there are MORAL flaws in not trying to understand the various facets of the culture your dealing with. Failing to do so costs lives unnecessarily. What I found most enlightening however, was not what the second article said - but what it DID NOT say. It did not share the facts around this man's death. Was it in the course of him pursuing data? Was it an IED or firefight? We don't know. So part of the equation is missing. Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one. As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam. To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-15-09, 12:35 PM	#6
NeonSamurai Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Socialist Republic of Kanadia Posts: 3,044 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	Nicely summed up Haplo __________________ SH3 Newbie Guide Links and other helpfull stuff

03-15-09, 12:42 PM	#7
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Oh good lord - its the end of subsim as we know it - Skybird and me agree! Actually - it just goes to show how mature this forum is in many ways. So many different views, but we all take each issue as its own. Good to see from us all. BTW Skybird - I may want a rematch in the future at some point! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo