Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well there was a clear and present danger as well as an appropriate response to Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored those people who attacked us and took the lives of over 3000 of our countrymen, that warrants a harsh response in my opinion. At the time there was little infrastructure and organization as compared to today and we stood a pretty good chance of effectively removing as much of the threat of Al Qaeda as possible. Even the rest of the Arab world stood by us and said... happy hunting.
What followed when we turned out heads and focused on Iraq was nothing less than hubris and delusions of grand hegemony. Even Iraq may have warranted a response for various violations of UN mandates, but to invade the country, to break it and to buy it? Was this really the adequate response?
I think these think tank people from the PNAC and the AEI who formulated this debacle did so under the premise that we kicked butt in Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm and surmised it would be a "cake walk". The difference being is that we had a clear goal in those conflicts, did our thing and got out. We now pay the price for letting fear win.
The thing most people are missing is the fundamental difference between our "war" in Afganistan, and in Iraq AFTER the fall of the Iraqi political leadership, and most of the other wars we have been involved with. Wars are fought between countries, with established political leadership, by warriors fighting under the direction the legitimate leadership of that country. Equally important, fighters adhere to some legitimate rule of war, such as acting as directed under a chain of command, and wearing the uniform of that country. The goal of war is ultimately to get the other guy to give up. Rather that means he gives up defending his country so you can occupy it, gives up land he has illegally occupied, or perhaps cease attacks on international shipping, the goal it for the other guy to give up and accept the terms of surrender. The best, quickest, and ultimately least bloody way to do so is with overwhelming firepower, convince the other guy that he doesn't have a chance and it's time to call it a day. It's called breaking their will to fight. We know how do do that and have the tools to do so better than anyone in the world. Even in GWII, the Iraqi military was destroyed and the capital captured in what, 3 weeks?
Iraq post Saddam and Afganistan are very different circumstances. You have a small subset of the population causing problems, reporting to no legitimate political authority, hiding amoungst civilians and obeying no accepted rules of war. Overwelming shock and awe doesn't work in that situation, unless you have gotten lucky and trapped the rats in a hole. Petraus and McCrystal both understood that the rules are different, you're not fighting an army, you're fighting bands of criminals. For better or worse, they won't be defeated until the vast majority of the civilian population turns on them and says enough. Making that happen is/will be slow, expensive and bloody. To do so, you have to show the population that you can offer them something better than what the enemy can, that you are strong enough to defeat that enemy and provide protection and security for the civilians. Ultimately, it comes down to nation building, like it or not. The US political leadership needs to decide if we're willing to do so. The left asked Bush a legitimate question about Iraq-What is the exit stratagy? A better question is what is your goal, what defines "winning" so we know when we can go home. Until we answer that, we're continuing to throw lives at a problem we haven't defined. Afgainstan is potentially much more difficult than Iraq. Iraq at least had a largely educatated population, technology and had known a central authority. Afgani culture is much more primitive, and much more focused on individual tribes rather than the nation.
Viet Nam is an a common comparison, and in regard to the points made in the OP, a fair one. It misses the fact that this could have been a "traditional" war against a political leadership. The real reason we lost VN is that our political leadership didn't have the will to win it. You don't win a war by going after a few grunts after they attack you, or by turning forests into toothpicks. You take ground, destroy the enemy's infrastructure and ability to make weapons of war, and destroy the political seat of power. Throughout VN, we never attacked enemy air strips, didn't attack sams in transit, until the very end we never touched their harbors and never did widespread bombing on Hanoi. We never even invaded the north and made an attempt to capture Hanoi. We were so concerned with keeping the war "clean" and not upsetting the Chinese and the USSR, that we were unwilling to use our capabilities to bring it to an end. And in the end threw away 56,000 American lives and an untold number of N and S Viet Namese.
The thing most people are missing is the fundamental difference between our "war" in Afganistan, and in Iraq AFTER the fall of the Iraqi political leadership, and most of the other wars we have been involved with. Wars are fought between countries, with established political leadership, by warriors fighting under the direction the legitimate leadership of that country. Equally important, fighters adhere to some legitimate rule of war, such as acting as directed under a chain of command, and wearing the uniform of that country. The goal of war is ultimately to get the other guy to give up. Rather that means he gives up defending his country so you can occupy it, gives up land he has illegally occupied, or perhaps cease attacks on international shipping, the goal it for the other guy to give up and accept the terms of surrender. The best, quickest, and ultimately least bloody way to do so is with overwhelming firepower, convince the other guy that he doesn't have a chance and it's time to call it a day. It's called breaking their will to fight. We know how do do that and have the tools to do so better than anyone in the world. Even in GWII, the Iraqi military was destroyed and the capital captured in what, 3 weeks?
Iraq post Saddam and Afganistan are very different circumstances. You have a small subset of the population causing problems, reporting to no legitimate political authority, hiding amoungst civilians and obeying no accepted rules of war. Overwelming shock and awe doesn't work in that situation, unless you have gotten lucky and trapped the rats in a hole. Petraus and McCrystal both understood that the rules are different, you're not fighting an army, you're fighting bands of criminals. For better or worse, they won't be defeated until the vast majority of the civilian population turns on them and says enough. Making that happen is/will be slow, expensive and bloody. To do so, you have to show the population that you can offer them something better than what the enemy can, that you are strong enough to defeat that enemy and provide protection and security for the civilians. Ultimately, it comes down to nation building, like it or not. The US political leadership needs to decide if we're willing to do so. The left asked Bush a legitimate question about Iraq-What is the exit stratagy? A better question is what is your goal, what defines "winning" so we know when we can go home. Until we answer that, we're continuing to throw lives at a problem we haven't defined. Afgainstan is potentially much more difficult than Iraq. Iraq at least had a largely educatated population, technology and had known a central authority. Afgani culture is much more primitive, and much more focused on individual tribes rather than the nation.
Viet Nam is an a common comparison, and in regard to the points made in the OP, a fair one. It misses the fact that this could have been a "traditional" war against a political leadership. The real reason we lost VN is that our political leadership didn't have the will to win it. You don't win a war by going after a few grunts after they attack you, or by turning forests into toothpicks. You take ground, destroy the enemy's infrastructure and ability to make weapons of war, and destroy the political seat of power. Throughout VN, we never attacked enemy air strips, didn't attack sams in transit, until the very end we never touched their harbors and never did widespread bombing on Hanoi. We never even invaded the north and made an attempt to capture Hanoi. We were so concerned with keeping the war "clean" and not upsetting the Chinese and the USSR, that we were unwilling to use our capabilities to bring it to an end. And in the end threw away 56,000 American lives and an untold number of N and S Viet Namese.
All excellent points but unfortunately, not everyone plays by the rules. That band of criminals you speak of, just so happen to control 80% of the country of Afghanistan and are apparently charging UN forces protection money so we can get supply convoy's through. (currently being investigated) Its madness right now.
The nature of warfare being as asymmetrical as it is tends to preclude the notion of fighting wars in a WWII fashion. Indigenous populations don't wear uniforms or makers denoting their position or faction. I would refer you to this very interesting short video on the weapons market in Pakistan, were not talking trading weapons, we are talking about the manufacture of weapons in small shops. Pretty wild video.
Also, in addition to what we do when we get into a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq is the dire need to better and more closely examine the repercussions of our actions and what future results might end up like. There is not guaranteed way, but certainly more consideration can't hurt.
Also, in addition to what we do when we get into a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq is the dire need to better and more closely examine the repercussions of our actions and what future results might end up like. There is not guaranteed way, but certainly more consideration can't hurt.
That makes sense, but since we don't seem to have learned much from Vietnam, I wonder what the odds are that Afghanistan will prove to be any different as a teaching tool.
We will never stop engaging in these wars until we face the reality of what really causes them in the first place.
It is very profitable for the shareholders of the Morgan Reserve. They finance these wars to bloat the debt which we then pay interest on. As long as we have an institution that profits from government debt, we will never stop having these wars and the welfare state will continue to grow.
We might huff and puff about world affairs, but the reality is that we could not be involved militarily without the money printers that make it all possible.
All excellent points but unfortunately, not everyone plays by the rules. That band of criminals you speak of, just so happen to control 80% of the country of Afghanistan and are apparently charging UN forces protection money so we can get supply convoy's through. (currently being investigated) Its madness right now.
The nature of warfare being as asymmetrical as it is tends to preclude the notion of fighting wars in a WWII fashion. Indigenous populations don't wear uniforms or makers denoting their position or faction. I would refer you to this very interesting short video on the weapons market in Pakistan, were not talking trading weapons, we are talking about the manufacture of weapons in small shops. Pretty wild video.
Also, in addition to what we do when we get into a situation like Afghanistan or Iraq is the dire need to better and more closely examine the repercussions of our actions and what future results might end up like. There is not guaranteed way, but certainly more consideration can't hurt.
All very true, my comments were to point out the difference between our typical war, against a nation-state as opposed to our current situation against criminal gangs.
BTW, this was a great, well thought out thread. It's taken me a bit to find time to compose a decent reply.
That makes sense, but since we don't seem to have learned much from Vietnam, I wonder what the odds are that Afghanistan will prove to be any different as a teaching tool.
Well I honestly believe it comes down to competing interests.
When I recall every news/entertainment outlet with the little flags and slogans like, "March to war, War on terror, etc...", nearly everyone bought into it. Afghanistan was a given but Iraq was sold to the American public, plain and simple. Then, two years into the war and occupation, all the reasons for going began to come apart. Two years later the press was writing articles and airing news programs on "How could we get it so wrong". Yet today they, even the supposedly liberal news outlets are selling conflict with Iran as though the previous 8 years didn't even exist.
So if the press is supposedly liberal then why is there almost no anti-war type sentiment on the major networks? I mean they might put up one guy who is anti-war but they put up 10 who are in full support of further military intervention.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is that there are financial interest involved in selling another conflict despite the majority of Americans waning support for more military intervention.
So there are two sets of lessons to be remembered, with one being the lessons outlined in the OP and the other lesson from the point of those with financial interest in perpetual conflict, namely weapons manufactures. For them Vietnam was a boom, Iraq and Afghanistan were like Christmas every day and Iran would be like every holiday wrapped into one. I don't think we can discount the money aspect to military intervention, even if everyone talks about wars and occupations in terms of morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
All very true, my comments were to point out the difference between our typical war, against a nation-state as opposed to our current situation against criminal gangs.
BTW, this was a great, well thought out thread. It's taken me a bit to find time to compose a decent reply.
I'm trying to convince the author to join the forum to occasionally offer additional insight.
Well with lack of personal stake in our wars and occupations it does make such expressions ring rather hollow. As General Patreas said:
I would think that there would be at least some national debate as to what supporting the troops actually entails outside of mere platitudes and bumper stickers. The questioning of the wisdom behind having our professional soldiers pull two and three tours of duty or more, asking them to put their lives on the line for a goal that even the generals are unsure about.
The biggest issue I had with Bush is now the biggest issue I have with Obama, which is the continuation of our occupations under no clear, definable goal or exit. While I understood and even expected support from the more militant right, I did not expect such acquiesced consensus from the left after Obama was elected. Just as baffling is the silence of the right to point this out.
I was just thinking about this the other day, as I posted a piece here called, "The forgotten war" nearly two years ago. Back when Iraq was in vogue and all the rage, Afghanistan barely registered as a blip on the screen with only scant mention on page 17. Today, the reverse is almost true and while Iraq isn't totally forgotten, it is rarely spoken of on our nightly news. In fact, you stand a better chance of seeing a monkey run loose in an Asian airport than you are likely to see a piece on Iraq.
That is the media we have today. It is not any better than our politics.
That is the media we have today. It is not any better than our politics.
Actually I would even assert that media is far worse and far more dangerous than even our current politics.
I recall a quote by General William Westmoreland during Vietnam, Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
Americans view of war today is more like that of an arcade game played on an X-box or a Nintendo where nice discreet bombs fall down air shafts from 30,000 feet. During the run up to the war EVERY news outlet was offering an overwhelming pro-war message with the occasional anti-war geek on a panel of five getting waxed by the proponents of war.
Remember this from Justice Black:
"In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
Justice Black
NYT v. US
403 US 713
Today however the press and the media are for profit entities that have a direct financial interest in granting the governments views more air time than anything, that is if they want legislation favorable towards corporate interests. Its no wonder America's most liberal leaning network is owned by a company that also makes the tools for war would advocate a pro-war view. One look at the current polling on Iran shows us that it is easier to sell Americans a war than selling them a wrist watch.
Sadly, our leaders watch these same programs which are little more than information wings of government, so it becomes this self serving cycle of news reporting quotes of government officials who are quoting media sources.
Its the greatest dog and pony show of modern times and despite Americans watching nearly 4 hours a day of this show, most are oblivious that it is even bread and circuses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
