As sad as it is, that's so true. You have to go in and destroy their way of life and then leave the choice up to them to either take your side or die. Being friendly is for after combat.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
General McChrystal humiliates Obama administration...again Update inside
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
As sad as it is, that's so true. You have to go in and destroy their way of life and then leave the choice up to them to either take your side or die. Being friendly is for after combat.
Lemon law
Lifer
I fundamentally disagree with any cop out that we could not win in Afghanistan or Vietnam as long as the enemy has a safe sanctuary to retreat to.
To start out with, in Vietnam and Afghanistan, it left the Vietcong and the Taliban, with an impossibly long and totally ineffective supply chain.
But there are huge differences between our military's approaches to Afghanistan and Vietnam. In Vietnam, we had more troops than the 1 troop per 50 in population doctrine, and in Afghanistan we need 620,000 by that doctrine. Nor did we do well very well in Iraq either, until we got the violence anarchy level down.
That is the enemy of any military occupation, the very anarchy and existing local government collapse every military drags along with it in its wake. Any successful military occupation has to hit the ground running to establish a local functioning government at the hamlet level, and we did not in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Second, the Western approach is always seeming from the top down, get the national government up and running first, and then assume it will trickle down to the hamlet level. And an insurgency like the Taliban and the Viet cong, always work from the bottom up, they establish local control, then tax the people, establish a semi functioning local government, and make sure it will not cooperate with the top down approach.
Worse yet, the occupying military can only win if it establishes local control, and the insurgency wins by just hanging on. Until the local people finally decide, the occupying military has to leave or they will forever stay inside of a shooting gallery.
The other thing to note is that two somewhat shining military occupations examples in US history, namely the post WW2 occupations of Germany and Japan worked because both Japan and Germany had a long history of having strong, effective, and popular central governments. And the then smarter US leaders worked with those central governments and prevented anarchy from breaking out. In post colonial Vietnam and Afghanistan, there never were strong, effective, or popular local governments to work with. As for Iraq, naive us, we thought we could just play Mr. Potato head, replace the head of Saddam Hussein with the no one ever heard of Achmed Chalabi head, and the body of Iraqi government would be unaffected. And then discovered, the Iraqi government was only held together by Saddam, we had three major ethnic groups that hated each other, and we did not have even 1/3 of the number of troops to prevent anarchy.
In any military occupation, you go big or stay at home, and you damn well have a effective sure fire working plan to establish effective local governance FAST, or going big will not work either.
Rumsfeld's fantasy Tattoo, was that being a superpower meant ordinary rules and common sense did not apply to the USA. Funny thing, McNamara had the same fantasy much earlier.
To start out with, in Vietnam and Afghanistan, it left the Vietcong and the Taliban, with an impossibly long and totally ineffective supply chain.
But there are huge differences between our military's approaches to Afghanistan and Vietnam. In Vietnam, we had more troops than the 1 troop per 50 in population doctrine, and in Afghanistan we need 620,000 by that doctrine. Nor did we do well very well in Iraq either, until we got the violence anarchy level down.
That is the enemy of any military occupation, the very anarchy and existing local government collapse every military drags along with it in its wake. Any successful military occupation has to hit the ground running to establish a local functioning government at the hamlet level, and we did not in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Second, the Western approach is always seeming from the top down, get the national government up and running first, and then assume it will trickle down to the hamlet level. And an insurgency like the Taliban and the Viet cong, always work from the bottom up, they establish local control, then tax the people, establish a semi functioning local government, and make sure it will not cooperate with the top down approach.
Worse yet, the occupying military can only win if it establishes local control, and the insurgency wins by just hanging on. Until the local people finally decide, the occupying military has to leave or they will forever stay inside of a shooting gallery.
The other thing to note is that two somewhat shining military occupations examples in US history, namely the post WW2 occupations of Germany and Japan worked because both Japan and Germany had a long history of having strong, effective, and popular central governments. And the then smarter US leaders worked with those central governments and prevented anarchy from breaking out. In post colonial Vietnam and Afghanistan, there never were strong, effective, or popular local governments to work with. As for Iraq, naive us, we thought we could just play Mr. Potato head, replace the head of Saddam Hussein with the no one ever heard of Achmed Chalabi head, and the body of Iraqi government would be unaffected. And then discovered, the Iraqi government was only held together by Saddam, we had three major ethnic groups that hated each other, and we did not have even 1/3 of the number of troops to prevent anarchy.
In any military occupation, you go big or stay at home, and you damn well have a effective sure fire working plan to establish effective local governance FAST, or going big will not work either.
Rumsfeld's fantasy Tattoo, was that being a superpower meant ordinary rules and common sense did not apply to the USA. Funny thing, McNamara had the same fantasy much earlier.
Last edited:
dmcowen674
No Lifer
and if this was 3 years ago and he said this about your hero Bush you would want his head, typical Republican wuss
theeedude
Lifer
Hopefully he'll get fired, good riddance.
You want a recipe for winning in Afganistan? Go to Chechnya.
We are going to have to get rid of Karzai, and find the Afghan equivalent of Kadyrov, a ruthless thug who can take care of business for us to prop up. There is no need for American troops to be doing the nation building over there. Our goal should be to kill Al Qaeda. Period.
You want a recipe for winning in Afganistan? Go to Chechnya.
We are going to have to get rid of Karzai, and find the Afghan equivalent of Kadyrov, a ruthless thug who can take care of business for us to prop up. There is no need for American troops to be doing the nation building over there. Our goal should be to kill Al Qaeda. Period.
heyheybooboo
Diamond Member
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Let me clarify my position on a few things for you.
Regarding people like Zinni- He came forward at an appropriate time and said what he thought needed saying. Any who acted like him did well IMO.
I haven't followed McCrystal because to be frank I have no interest in what he says. He's going to get slapped appropriately and I haven't a problem with that at all. I don't even care about what he's bitching about.
I do recall a number of retired generals who expressed their disagreement with his policy with Israel. Most responses were measured and while they disagreed took the time to notice that weren't active. There were some comments that were less than, how shall I say, consistent with their POVs when Bush was President. I could post something specifically, but I'd rather not start bringing members who have not participated in this thread. It's easy enough to find in a search though.
I had that in mind when I posted, but was in error for giving the impression which I did.
I find my patience limited for partisans, and frankly I'm disappointed that something which I thought a priority with the Dems was not (namely this whole ME mess).
Then again some days are better than others 😉 I'm probably in my "not the sharpest knife in the drawer mode" right now 😀
PrinceofWands
Lifer
I'm sure your time in the Nazi ranks was very successful for you.
sandorski
No Lifer
So this guy is simply refusing orders that are Crimes Against Humanity? Wut?
palehorse
Lifer
I think the primary issue is a general -- albeit completely well-deserved -- lack of respect for our civilian "leadership."
I'll say it... they're fucking worthless; and, 10 times out of 10, they're completely detached and/or ignorant of whatever problem they inject themselves into and try to solve.
This applies to war, healthcare, immigration, economy, etc etc, ad infinitum.
Given this fact, I believe it's up to our military leadership and others, for once, to buck the chain of command and tell the politicians the fucking truth -- consequences to one's own career be damned!
I wish there was a bloodless way to replace every last elected politician with intelligent people who themselves never sought to become slime-sucking politicians... Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with our worthless civilian leadership... forever. 🙁
PS: There are, of course, worthless military leaders as well; however, McChrystal isn't one of those. It will be very sad to see him go...
I'll say it... they're fucking worthless; and, 10 times out of 10, they're completely detached and/or ignorant of whatever problem they inject themselves into and try to solve.
This applies to war, healthcare, immigration, economy, etc etc, ad infinitum.
Given this fact, I believe it's up to our military leadership and others, for once, to buck the chain of command and tell the politicians the fucking truth -- consequences to one's own career be damned!
I wish there was a bloodless way to replace every last elected politician with intelligent people who themselves never sought to become slime-sucking politicians... Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with our worthless civilian leadership... forever. 🙁
PS: There are, of course, worthless military leaders as well; however, McChrystal isn't one of those. It will be very sad to see him go...
Last edited:
Lemon law
Lifer
In my mind there is something totally incongruous about the Haya Bausa Rider comment of, "I haven't followed McCrystal because to be frank I have no interest in what he says. He's going to get slapped appropriately and I haven't a problem with that at all. I don't even care about what he's bitching about."
Which somewhat boils down to, I know nothing of the Afghan issues, no idea about the military competence or lack of in McCrystal, but I will side with our POTUS right or wrong. And then somewhat ignores the context of the criticism, when it not McCrystal going over the head of POTUS to appeal to the American public, but rather more the comments of McCrystal aides expressing their frustration with Obama advisers who they feel are clueless in some rolling stones magazine interview. Somehow, in MHO, it does not rise to the level of Douglas MacArtur insubordination.
And at the same time, we have this little unmistakable skunk lurking in the room, SOMEWHERE, and the overwhelming smell means just one thing, almost nine years into the Afghan quagmire, we can only conclude, each and every year, a Nato victory in Afghanistan is even more distant than when we started.
And if we conclude the latter statement is fairly true, we must either say, (a) A Nato victory is Afghanistan is totally impossible. (b) If we are not winning, we had better understand why we are not, and then make the correct tactical changes so we can start winning. Yet HayaBuasa Rider professes ignorance in this area of how to change tactics, so why is he bothering to post because anything he says must by definition be totally devoid of any needed insights.
I have been posting on this Afghan subject for five years now, suggesting the things we need to to do to start winning, can't say I have met much forum approval, but at least I have an opinion and can articulate why I hold those views.
Which somewhat boils down to, I know nothing of the Afghan issues, no idea about the military competence or lack of in McCrystal, but I will side with our POTUS right or wrong. And then somewhat ignores the context of the criticism, when it not McCrystal going over the head of POTUS to appeal to the American public, but rather more the comments of McCrystal aides expressing their frustration with Obama advisers who they feel are clueless in some rolling stones magazine interview. Somehow, in MHO, it does not rise to the level of Douglas MacArtur insubordination.
And at the same time, we have this little unmistakable skunk lurking in the room, SOMEWHERE, and the overwhelming smell means just one thing, almost nine years into the Afghan quagmire, we can only conclude, each and every year, a Nato victory in Afghanistan is even more distant than when we started.
And if we conclude the latter statement is fairly true, we must either say, (a) A Nato victory is Afghanistan is totally impossible. (b) If we are not winning, we had better understand why we are not, and then make the correct tactical changes so we can start winning. Yet HayaBuasa Rider professes ignorance in this area of how to change tactics, so why is he bothering to post because anything he says must by definition be totally devoid of any needed insights.
I have been posting on this Afghan subject for five years now, suggesting the things we need to to do to start winning, can't say I have met much forum approval, but at least I have an opinion and can articulate why I hold those views.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
I understand how you feel. Believe me I think little of what passes for "leadership", nevertheless there are some things you don't do. If McCrystal was given The Truth by (insert deity of your choice), he's still obligated to give his CIC's office respect.
If McCrystal wants to do what others have and resign in protest then come out with biting criticism then hat's off.
Not this way though. You know this.
Perhaps you should run for office if you think you're better than them.
lupi
Lifer
Unsurprisingly the hypocrisy here is overflowing and absurd. Your messiah campaigned on finishing the true war and once he did have the ultimate option on how to do so he let it butt fuck him until the general stood up and said five me the troops to do the job or we're pulling back into our bases and will let the country complete itself into the hell you've planned.
Before leaving the office heard cnn say the were told but not able to confirm he resigned. If so this will be a continuation of this administrations failings marked by ineptness from your commander-in-chief of unprecedented levels.
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Perhaps a bit of amplification is in order. I'm aware of his views, but there is more than military strategy here. Someone in his position knows that unless there is something akin to what the Nazi's did he's obliged to follow the direction of his superiors. That's the beginning and the end of it. If he want's to let Obama know he think's he's a fool, then let him do it in private. That's why I don't care about his complaints, and that's what I'm referring to.
I'm hardly a fan of Obama as you know, nor do I think that a military strategy will work. In fact I think that at this time any involvement is a complete waste.
Nevertheless, I would not have said that in public if I was in uniform.
Your false statements about Afghanistan aside, how does McChrystal acting insubordinate and then submitting his resignation make Obama incompetent?
GuitarDaddy
Lifer
This x10
And I love how any thread regarding the President brings out the racist fucktards that just can't keep their rage bottle up and must constantly show their baboon asses and spew their hatred of the man🙁
And of course these types think that long valued priciples like "chain of command" and "respect for authority" only apply when theres a white man in the white house.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
No no, just about the whole 'respect the chain of command' bs. That way lays ruin.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Tell me you aren't so stupid that you think disrespecting the chain of command by publicly vocalizing criticism and disrespecting the chain of command by not following orders to purposely execute civilians are the same thing. You aren't REALLY that dense, right?
Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Congrats on being "that guy"
That's not bs, that's the way the military operates. It's a hierarchy, not a democracy. Maybe military leaders should put all of their decisions to a vote? 🙄
Last edited:
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
Undermining the Obama administration = good.
I support General McChrystal. Maybe Obama should resign for his administration's failure in the Gulf Oil Spill.
I support General McChrystal. Maybe Obama should resign for his administration's failure in the Gulf Oil Spill.
alphatarget1
Diamond Member
How does this have anything to do with race? Race card FTL.
the general was completely out of line and I don't see how he's going to avoid a demotion or, at a minimum, being removed from command over Afghanistan.
that said, as an American citizen, I think it provides a valuable insight into the dissent and arguments going on over Afghanistan behind the scenes. maybe he wanted to be removed from command over the clusterfuck of a war and that was his way of going out with a bang.
that said, as an American citizen, I think it provides a valuable insight into the dissent and arguments going on over Afghanistan behind the scenes. maybe he wanted to be removed from command over the clusterfuck of a war and that was his way of going out with a bang.
Zebo
Elite Member
This guys says it more PC than I from original rolling stone story
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.
Jaskalas
Lifer
Essentially we want out of Afghanistan.
Lemon law
Lifer
Listening to the nightly news, Obama may sack McCrystal, but to Obama's credit, he will meet with McCrystal to let McCrystal have a chance to explain.
Only time will tell if McCrystal can salvage his command.
But will it make a whit of difference in terms of winning in Afghanistan either way?
Only time will tell if McCrystal can salvage his command.
But will it make a whit of difference in terms of winning in Afghanistan either way?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
