Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3

People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never
"conquered".

tell it to ghengis khan
That is not history, that is legend and folk lore.
We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal
areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be
descendants of the Khan army.

we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered
afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you?

Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you
could say we are fighting Ghengis

could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it?

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:31 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:20:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:34:59 -0400, "mmc" wrote:



on 9/11 there was no functional difference between AQ and the taliban.
now there is. i have no objections at all to negotiating with
elements of the taliban...as long as they keep their noses clean



The Taliban is not al queda.

at that time there was no functional difference. learn your history.

They just share a common enemy, US
invaders

uh...we hadnt invaded afghanistant when they attacked us.

learn your history

. We empowered the Taliban

we empowered them by kicking them out of kabul??

gee. you really don't know anything about afghanistan, do you?

.. There is little chance we will
ever stop them as long as we keep killing innocent civilians

cliche

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:55:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

ROFLMAO!!! boy you ARE draggiing out the cliches, aren't you?

the viet cong and NVA had the support of china and the USSR.

the taliban enjoy the support of the ISI.

big deal!

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On 7/11/10 3:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:38:59 -0400, wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

Far as I know, we've only won one insurgent war and that was when we were
the insurgents. The only way to "win" this one is to declare a tie or call
it a victory if we would rather continue to lie to ourselves (we stopped
fooling the rest of the world a long time ago) and leave.
The "win" will be stopping the loss of life for all and not having to
finance a war we can't afford.
This goes for Iraq as well.


I would go farther and say I defy anyone to come up with an example of
a super power putting down an insurgency except perhaps for the Nazis
and the Soviets. They did it by ignoring all rules of common decency
and it really just drove the insurgents underground. Is that who we
want to emulate?
It might be noted that the Soviets had their ass handed to them in
Afghanistan.
We watched the French in Vietnam and didn't learn anything, then we
watched the Soviets in Afghanistan and didn't learn anything.
Is the US just stupid?


The situation in afghanistan is worse than anyone is discussing,
vis-a-vis the US involvement there. Afghanistan may define a territory,
but it certainly does not define a country. Is there a period in the
lifetimes of anyone living in that "country" when it was a functioning
political entity, with an effective centralized government and strong
provincial governments who believed in the concept of nationhood?

Villagers in many parts of Afghanistan are often at war with the next
village down the road. Its US-imposed elections are corrupt. The
so-called central government is corrupt, and in reality, there is no
central government.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:24:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:10:37 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:37:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

We have hitched our hopes to a corrupt government in a country famous
for grinding up super powers, somehow thinking everything will work
out for us.

you guys think that 'grinding up superpowers' is a profound
observation

it's a cliche. afghanistan has been conquered 3 times in the last 1000
years.

People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never
"conquered".

tell it to ghengis khan.

That is not history, that is legend and folk lore.
We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal
areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be
descendants of the Khan army.

I don't know of any US policy that claims we want to "control" the tribal
regions. What we want is a stable gov't that doesn't harbor terrorists,
such
as
Al-Qaeda.


I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the
area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora.
We had influence in Northwestern Afghanistan but when we got down near
the Pakistan border where tribal leaders are in charge we did not have
enough local support to operate. More people will not do anything but
drive the opposition farther underground and they will pop up like
dandelions as soon as we leave. This is not Iraq.

Currently they don't, but the policy is to give them more stability and less
corruption. They may never "control" the tribal regions, but they'll be able
(according to the policy) keep it under control.

No... we failed in Tora Bora because Bush aka Rumsfeld failed to follow
through.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100 million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.

I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.

The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.

Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.


Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a
single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply
traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be
attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed.

Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused to
give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took over
and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a safe-haven.
Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:27:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:26:00 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Afghanistan has very little to do with terrorism. There may be less
than 100 al queda in Afghanistan and we are spending about 100
million
dollars a year each to try to kill them.
This is a stupid way to waste our grand kid's money at a time when
the
country is in so much fiscal trouble.
I disagree. Locals are not turning in taliban. And the way taliban
is
used, it can encompass any radical islam organization. It isn't like
there is just one.
The Taliban is not al queda, although Washington would like us to
think they are the same.
Some in Washington. The adults don't think that nor promote that false
notion.


Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a
single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply
traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be
attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed.

AQ was head-quartered in Afghanistan, and sheltered by the Taliban.
They were asked to turn over Bin Laden and refused.
You can't separate 9/11, AQ and Taliban. Not possible.

Actually, you can to some degree. There are flavors of Taliban, apparently.

If Taliban regain power, the cycle will repeat.
Refute that.

Probably true.

With no Taliban refuge in Afghanistan, remaining AQ are forced into
Pakistan, and the Pakis will deal with them, as they are increasingly
doing.
Besides that, the Taliban are criminal trash, and allowing them back
will become a huge human rights issue, and we will have to re-invade
with UN forces.

Perhaps they'll deal with them. It's in the own best self-interest
certainly.

Keep in mind that when the Iraq "surge" started there was "no hope" for
establishing a working government in Iraq.
Many wanted to abandon the effort.
There is a government there now, and time will tell if it succeeds.
The memories of Saddam will help.
I don't remember when the last American casualty occurred there.

There will be a "progress report" on Afghan operations in December, and
another in July/2011.
We will know the progress in building Afghan armed forces, and be able
to count our own costs in blood and treasure, and adjust as necessary.
I expect success, and we can thank our military for it.
As others have said, victory is establishing any government that isn't
the Taliban, and doesn't approach the Taliban abuse of human rights.
They'll be crooks, but like U.S. pols, "good crooks."
Once they get cable or satellite TV installed in enough homes, and
enough cell phone towers put up, the Taliban problem will go away.
There is no other solution I can think of.
You haven't offered any solution except "cut and run."
GWB didn't do that in Iraq, and Obama won't in Afghanistan.
Because there is no other moral choice but to "stay the course."
Like it or lump it.

Jim - Laying out the choices.

Well, I'm not sure if I completely agree with "stay the course" entirely,
forever. That's why there's a deadline in place... flexible, but a deadline.

Only time will tell..

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault
for
not letting them finish the job.


I agree with Harry on this one.
Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them.

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control. Not
to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted.

Once again, the military establishment proves...
 

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:48:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:29:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:22:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

So far this war is getting close to two times as long as WW II and no
sight of peace.

that's the nature of guerrilla insurrections. we don't have to 'win'.
we just dont have to lose

We did so well in Vietnam, what could possibly go wrong

If you listen to the generals of that era, it was the politicians' fault for
not letting them finish the job.


I agree with Harry on this one.
Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them.

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

No one would deny that the job of Generals is to fight wars.

Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in Afghanistan
another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there.
--

I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !!

John H