The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on November 11, 2010, 01:31:13 AM
-
I'm going to post this without comment. Still, I think its appropriate to consider on Veteran's Day. What exactly constitutes victory in Afghanistan? When can we say "Mission Accomplished" or alternatively "We failed for these reasons and will avoid them in the future"? I've had two president's who have failed to answer that one basic question. What is victory? I leave it to the board.
FQ13 who doesn't seek an argument, just a reasonable plan that we haven't been given by two Administrations and is getting an uncomfortable sense of deja vu.
-
I'll answer with another question.....Who is the enemy?
Victory in the middle east is unattainable.....
IMO....
-
I'm going to post this without comment. Still, I think its appropriate to consider on Veteran's Day. What exactly constitutes victory in Afghanistan? When can we say "Mission Accomplished" or alternatively "We failed for these reasons and will avoid them in the future"? I've had two president's who have failed to answer that one basic question. What is victory? I leave it to the board.
FQ13 who doesn't seek an argument, just a reasonable plan that we haven't been given by two Administrations and is getting an uncomfortable sense of deja vu.
Ask the Russians what constitutes victory, hang on they were smart enough to get the heck out of there, and if I remember the ruskies was the bad guys and the afghanies was the good guys. Only one victory is obtainable. Nuke it!
-
Turning sand to glass
-
I'll answer with another question.....Who is the enemy?
Victory in the middle east is unattainable.....
IMO....
Agreed, at least if you plan on leaving the natives.
-
The War on Terrorists is like a game of Whack-A-Mole.
Every time a terrorist sticks his head out of his hole, that hole needs to be Whacked hard and Whacked quickly...every time.
Don't think there is a PC way of getting that done, but that is what needs to be done.
It will end when those living near the hole get tired of getting Whacked along with the hole and start plugging the holes before we need to.
-
FQ, the reason 2 President's have failed to answer the question is that they do not know.
What should have been a simple punitive raid, Go in kill a bunch of bad guy's, depose the current regime and get out,letting the natives go back to fighting among themselves, which could have been done in about 90 days or less has drag on for 10 years of waste and expense in lives and treasure because our own gutless touchy feely society can not face the occasional need for applied violence.
Solus is right, the War on Terror is a job for Special Op's guy's traveling here and there to kill this guy or capture and interrogate that guy. There is no practical purpose behind having Regular Troops occupying ground beyond establishing bases for the effective forces to operate from.
The best argument against our continued presence in Afghanistan is that BHO favors it.
With the current problems we have at home, it begins to seem like the Taliban are fighting our fight.
It may be a crappy primitive way of life, but it is theirs and they are fighting to protect it from the ravages of Wal-Mart and the "World Bank".
FQ, Your question is not at all unpatriotic. If you saw some one trying to change a light bulb with a hammer you would be perfectly correct to question if they knew what the hell they were doing.
-
What is victory in Afghanistan? Getting all our troops home alive!!!
Pecos
-
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/mushroom_cloud.jpg)
Unequivocal, and complete, total victory.
Seriously, I would get the troops out, leave several bill boards with this image around the country. Leave some drones, and Black Ops type spooks to recon, gather intel, and take targets of opportunity.
and if they "f" up with another attack on our country, based out of that sh**hole of a country, refer to image above.
Maybe Little Man In Iran would finally get it. Of course it will be with the next POTUS, this one's a wuss.
-
It's time to face fact and stop foolishly kidding ourselves. They can criticize the Taliban, the Mosha Hadin, and any and all other enemies that we, along with other countries have faced in Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is we have all we can do to stop these small bunches of goat herders, armed with rifles that outclassed us in the jungles of Viet Nam over 40 years ago. These people have what we and the Soviets do not, the will to fight, and NEVER GIVE UP! The fact of the matter is we will never beat these people armed with guns made on anvils in caves, shooting 4 decade old surplus ammunition. It's not going to happen. The sooner we realize what the Soviets have already learned, and get out of that God forsaken stink hole, the better off we'll be as a country, and economically as well. As the Mosha Hadin proved fighting from caves on horseback, helos are easy targets, when they're not crashing on their own. It's time to get the hell out of there. Bill T.
-
What constitutes victory in Afghanistan? It depends on whom you ask.
For the military/industrial complex it is a perpetual low-grade conflict stretching for decades.
For the general folk, it is the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from there immediately...
We have more to fear from threats here at home than we do from men with turbans living in caves and mud huts.
-
This is a matter of perspective. As long as there is evil on Earth, warriors must stand ready to fight and kill. Doesn't mean evil will ever be eradicated. But that doesn't convince me that we shouldn't fight against it. Threats at home need to be #1 priority (U.S. MEXICO BORDER). Those bastards will hurt us again when they get the chance. As long as they plan to kill us, we need to kill them first.
-
If victory were defined by everyone coming home alive, then we could have been victorious in WWII a lot sooner, with a lot less expense and bloodshed. Victory usually involves an unconditional surrender. For that to happen there needs to be someone who can actually order the surrender of a side's fighting forces. There is no single "terror" leader. Not every terrorist reports to Bin Laden. If Bin Laden, gave up and ordered the surrender of every terrorist that won't bring victory. We have got home grown terrorist such as the Ft. Hood shooter and the D.C. sniper, who on their own initiative became "radical".
You can never winner a "War on [insert nebulous term here]".
You can't win a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on hunger, a war on crime, or a war on terror. At best you can only be "winning".
Terrorist are closer to organized crime than fighting against a nation. You don't close down the police department because you caught the mob boss. If our goal is to keep America safe, then we must take the fight to them. I certainly agree that conventional forces occupying a country may not be the best way to do that. But, you have to keep the enemy so busy looking over their shoulders that they are not given a decade in relative comfort to plan a strike.
There are three things that fuel an adversary:
1. Financial backing
2. Philosophical unity
3. Physical force
With most enemies all three come from one distinct source. Nazi Germany financed itself with stolen property, forced labor, and spoils of war. Hitler's philosophy united Germans and gave them a sense of pride and a common enemy. The Third Reich was constantly recruiting and training through the youth program. Because these components were centralized the defeat of all three could be achieved by forcing surrender.
With Islam, those three components are scattered. The financial backing comes from oil-rich countries (Saudi Arabia) and even from donors in America. The philosophy is preached in mosques throughout the world—again including here in America where we protect it. The most violent form—wahhabism—is the dominant form embraced in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia clearly provides all three components to terrorism, but they have been given a free pass. How many hijackers were Saudi? The physical force is popping up from everywhere. Disgruntled thugs in prison are ripe for Islamic conversion and radicalization.
In closing, if victory is to win the war on terror, I am afraid it cannot be achieved. If victory is winning the war on terror then it is and will always be a temporal and fragile one in need of our armed forces to always be in harms way.
-
Bill, the only thing lacking in Vietnam or Afghanistan is balls in Washington, there is a simple solution to fighting this type of enemy, you just have to exterminate the entire population .
The idea of using Nukes is proof of a lack of understanding of the realities of the area, they have been constantly at war since 1979, Afghanistan had more land mines per square acre than any other place on earth, what are you going to do, "bomb them into modern times ? They never got out of the stone age.
Fox hound, you also lack understanding, The Taliban may be assholes but they never did any thing to us.
Al Queda hit the WTC, not the Taliban, they just rented UBL some space.
If you are attacked by some one, would you burn down the Hotel that happened to rent them a room ?
Many of you make the same mistake most people have been making since Vietnam.
This ain't WWII. That type of thinking is why we LOST Vietnam.
Little Red is about the closest to a practical answer.
-
I'll answer with another question.....Who is the enemy?
Victory in the middle east is unattainable.....
IMO....
Little Red is about the closest to a practical answer.
I said the same thing without all the words and stuff!
;D ;D
-
I said the same thing without all the words and stuff!
;D ;D
Nothing says PO'd like a 16 inch salvo ? ;D
-
Nothing says PO'd like a 16 inch salvo ? ;D
President Reagan had a similar approach back in 1986 when Kadafi's actions "crossed the line". The collateral damage is the risk those who support/allow terrorists to function assume. I always wondered if the adopted daughter was adopted after the attack. Then I started to wonder if she died after the attack also.
You may remember, Kadafi was seldom heard from for many years after this event.
Abunimah News - 13 April 2006
20 YEARS AGO:
13) 100 dead as Reagan orders bombing of Tripoli (LA Times)
14) Rescuers lose hope in grisly clean up (Guardian)
Los Angeles Times - 15 April 1986
100 DEAD ESTIMATED IN TRIPOLI; KADAFI'S DAUGHTER KILLED;
SOVIETS CANCEL U.S. TALKS; 2 SONS OF LIBYA CHIEF WOUNDED
TRIPOLI, Libya--As dusk fell over this U.S.-bombed capital today, diplomats
estimated that about 100 people were killed in the pre-dawn attack, and
doctors said the dead included Libyan leader Col. Moammar Kadafi's baby
daughter.
Dr. Mohammad Muafa, director of pediatrics at Tripoli's Fatah University
Hospital, said he was summoned to the Kadafi family compound about an hour
after the 2 a.m. raid and found the family, including Kadafi's wife, "in
very bad terror."
The daughter, 15-month-old Hana, died from a brain hemorrhage about two
hours after he arrived, Muafa said.
Two of Kadafi's sons, aged 3 and 4 1/2, were injured, he said. Kadafi had
eight children, including the recently adopted girl.
No Kadafi Statement
-
You will note that not only have we had no problems with him since, he is in fact one of our more valuable Arab allies in the "War on terror".
-
You will note that not only have we had no problems with him since, he is in fact one of our more valuable Arab allies in the "War on terror".
Me thinks you speak in jest.
http://uncoverthenews.com/2010/07/20/there-is-no-al-qaeda-muammar-gaddafi/comment-page-1/
I think he just keeps a lower profile.
-
I was reading through this again and had a thought (no cracks about how often that happens). I understand how most of you feel and might thoughts, at times, have been to just wipe the SOBs from the face of the earth. The thought did occur to me, has any of our military leaders read a book called "The Art of War". If I remember correctly the author of that book discussed how to win a war against an overwhelming force. Seems like that's what's happening in the middle east. I'm no expert but might be a worth while read for some of the chosen few in D. C. What y'all think?
Pecos
-
I think the art of war is required reading for officers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_9th_Company
this is a good movie about the Ruskies in Afghanistan. watched it recently with my first engineer, (he's from Poland) and was impressed by the Soviet propaganda machine. not bad for a bunch of commies. (the first engineer left communist Poland and sought political asylum anywhere in the world, and ended up in the USA.) anyway, interesting movie, subtitled and dubbed in English.
deepwater
-
Sun Tsu's "The art of War" is required reading For Marine's Staff Sgt and above, Just like Rommel's "Infantry Attack's" and Giap's "How we won the war".
Does not mean you can make them understand it though .
If they did Giap would not have won his war.
Here's the list, it goes by rank.
Some surprising titles in there, like "Starship Troopers"
http://home.comcast.net/~antaylor1/usmccommandant.html
Rat Catcher, ever since the Palistinians accepted his money then screwed him on the investments they promised him, regardless of what he says for the masses , he has closed all the terrorist training camps and has been burying us with intel.
He is a much better ally than the Saudi's, Yemeni's, or Pakistani's.
I will take this chance to point out that the Taliban are in fact a creation of the Paki ISI.
-
Sun Tsu's "The art of War" is required reading For Marine's Staff Sgt and above, Just like Rommel's "Infantry Attack's" and Giap's "How we won the war".
Does not mean you can make them understand it though .
If they did Giap would not have won his war.
Gee, you think we might have thought twice about building the base at Khe Sahn if we'd ever heard abut a pre-historic battle fought far away at a place called Dien Bien Phu? ::) You have to wonder whether Giap was laughing or just rolling his eyes and shaking his head. Of course, the same could be said for the Taliban today. :-\
FQ13
-
Gee, you think we might have thought twice about building the base at Khe Sahn if we'd ever heard abut a pre-historic battle fought far away at a place called Dien Bien Phu? ::) You have to wonder whether Giap was laughing or just rolling his eyes and shaking his head. Of course, the same could be said for the Taliban today. :-\
FQ13
FQ, They were very aware of DBP, . They knew exactly what they were doing when they staged the build up at Khe San, that is why they made "little changes" like putting the base on a hill instead of on the floor of the valley, minor enough to be overlooked by the NVA command, but important enough to change the out come of the battle.
It was a trap for the NVA they bit and suffered humongous losses.
-
FQ, They were very aware of DBP, . They knew exactly what they were doing when they staged the build up at Khe San, that is why they made "little changes" like putting the base on a hill instead of on the floor of the valley, minor enough to be overlooked by the NVA command, but important enough to change the out come of the battle.
It was a trap for the NVA they bit and suffered humongous losses.
Just like every battle Tom. 10 or 20 to one body count and Giap called them a win. He was right too.
FQ13
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khe_Sanh
US casualties
730 killed in action
2,642 wounded,
7 missing
South VietnamARVN:
229 killed
436 wounded
Total: 4,044 casualties
(959 killed, 3,078 wounded, 7 missing)
NVA Casualties
Unknown; At least 1,600 killed according to US sources, total casualties estimated between 10,000 and 15,000[
-
I don't think that I lack any understanding on the subject. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough.
Just because I said that they would "hurt us again" doesn't mean that I was referring to the attack on the WTC.
The difference between Al Queda and Taliban don't really matter to me. Yes, they are from different places. I have a good grasp on geography.
They both will take American lives given any opportunity, so in my perspective they are on the same side of the fence.
The one point I wished to communicate is that we have come this far. If we leave now (and I mean on any front that we fight these enemies), I feel that the soldier's that have given their all for this cause will have died in vain.
The obvious problem is the administration we have in place.
-
I don't think that I lack any understanding on the subject. Maybe I just wasn't explicit enough.
Just because I said that they would "hurt us again" doesn't mean that I was referring to the attack on the WTC.
The difference between Al Queda and Taliban don't really matter to me. Yes, they are from different places. I have a good grasp on geography.
They both will take American lives given any opportunity, so in my perspective they are on the same side of the fence.
The one point I wished to communicate is that we have come this far. If we leave now (and I mean on any front that we fight these enemies), I feel that the soldier's that have given their all for this cause will have died in vain.
The obvious problem is the administration we have in place.
So how many more lives do you think we should waste to compensate for a total lack of coherent objective ?
-
Exactly. If I were to die because my CO made an error, would I really want one of my buddies to die bringing my body back home? If I were wounded, yeah, I'd appreciate the effort. If I'm dead, go home to your family and leave me be. :-\
FQ13
-
Don't never leave any one behind.
-
Don't never leave any one behind.
I get the sentiment, and I am in awe of duty. BUT....in Somalia, a fair few folks died trying to get bodies out of the wreakage of a downed chopper. At what point do you say "Stop sending the living after the dead"? Fight like hell to save the wounded or captured, but how many people are you willing to sacrifice for a corpse? If I were the corpse in question, my answer would be zero. But thats just my .02 and maybe its why I think think that the argument that says "We should send more soldiers to die because soldiers have already died here" doesn't hold much water with me. If the fight is necessary and winnable, fight. Hell, if its necessary and not winnable, still fight. But if its neither? Why exactly are we there? :-\
Thats all I'm asking here. I want someone to tell me when we've won or lost. We've been there 10 years. What constitutes victory? You'll forgive me if I'm a bit pissed at having not one, but two, presidents fail to give me a one sentence answer to that question. We've spent billions of dollars and thousands of casulties, killed and wounded. What do we need to do? It seems to me, as a relatively simple man, that if you can't define what victory in a war is, maybe you should hesitate before going to war. I'm not a pacifist aand have no love for muslims. I just think we owe it to our troops to tell them exactly what constitutes victory and I've yet to hear it. >:(
FQ13 Who really would like a good answer to this question, because while I will always support the troops, I don't think their leaders could find their ass with both hands and a map. >:(
-
Tom,
I wouldn't define any soldier losing his or her life while following their orders (ANY ORDERS) a waste.
I have several friends that are active duty Marines either in country or shortly to be going back. I have personally spoken with many whom I didn't grow up with or know personally. I really doubt you would find one among them who believed what they and their brothers are spilling blood for is a waste of time. Most of these fine men I know or speak to were still in high school when we put boots on the ground in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. I know a 43 year old mother of two who flew out last month, Army National Guard. In her words, "They need me to go. I have to go."
This is what they signed up for. They volunteered.
As long as the men on the ground believe in what they are doing, I am happy to let them do it.
-
Fox hound, I understand what you are saying, I have no use for the AHoles who said "I just signed up for the free education, I don't want to go to war".
That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is WTF are we trying to accomplish in that shithole.
The Govt is spending lives and money to cover their lack of defined objective and that is indeed waste.
FQ, You don't get it. The services, the TROOPS, will sacrifice a battalion to recover a fallen comrade, and know it was worth it.
-
Fox hound, I understand what you are saying, I have no use for the AHoles who said "I just signed up for the free education, I don't want to go to war".
That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is WTF are we trying to accomplish in that shithole.
The Govt is spending lives and money to cover their lack of defined objective and that is indeed waste.
FQ, You don't get it. The services, the TROOPS, will sacrifice a battalion to recover a fallen comrade, and know it was worth it.
Tom I do get it. I was speaking metaphorically here. The "corpse" here is about keeping fighting just because others have fought. I'm all for fighting until we win. I'm not in favor of foghting just to make a point.
FQ13