West Point Is Divided on a War Doctrine’s Fate

[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]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.



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

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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? 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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

so you think Iraq was invaded to boost the profits of Carlyle and Haliburton? 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.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

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.