General McChrystal humiliates Obama administration...again Update inside

[Nebor]

They've already repeatedly attempted peace talks and reconciliation with the Taliban. Not only is it a terrible idea, but it never works. The Taliban never sends representatives, they send rockets.

I do think you have a point in that the Taliban worked well in governing the Afghan people. And that's because as a people, they only respond to force\violence\brutality. The only way to get Afghans to move their crashed cars from a busy intersection is for the police to beat them until they move their cars. If you look at Chechnya, you'll see that a Russian supported leader, using brutal, violent tactics, has brought that Muslim population under control. I believe a similar ruler would work well in Afghanistan. We could continue to support and train their police and military, but we would no longer be involved in major combat operations. Instead collapse our operations to training bases (for Afghan military and police) and air bases from which to launch special forces to target known Taliban\insurgent\bad guy locations.

We can develop all the institutions and ministries we want. As it stands, the Afghan people don't respect the government, because the government is trying to govern like a western government. Instead we need a brute in office, like in Chechnya. Oh, the Afghan police found bomb making equipment in your house? You'll be executed. Along with your family. The guy that sold you lamb? He's dead too, for supporting you.

You have to make the costs too high to side with the Taliban. That can't be done through COIN. With COIN we're allowing them to have OUR cake, and eat it too.

 

[Chaotic42]

A population always has the government it has earned. I don't think there's much to be gained in Afghanistan. We need to focus on domestic issues for a while.

 

[Lemon law]

To start out with, Nebor says, "The Taliban never sends representatives, they send rockets." Wrong again Nebor, you must have Afghanistan confused with Gaza. The Taliban has the run of the place and does not need to send inaccurate annoyance rockets when they have much better weapons.

Then Nebor states, "We can develop all the institutions and ministries we want. As it stands, the Afghan people don't respect the government, because the government is trying to govern like a western government." Wrong again, the Afghan government does not even try to operate like a Western style government, its police are corrupt, the whole government is on the take from drug money, and outside of Kabul, there is no Afghan government. So the courts do not work, the police are the enemy if any are around, and Nato does nothing to even try to make the Afghan government function like a government. Meanwhile Nato is here one day and gone the next, on an endless effort to stir up anarchy and violence.

But maybe Nebor is right, Nato needs to be like the Russians in Chechnya, But Nato can't even get that right without coming up with a lot more troops. Nor has the Chechnya strategy exactly worked out for Russia who have been at it since the times of Tsar. Russia keep getting hit with one 911 type attack on their home land after another.

 

[Fox5]

A population always has the government it has earned. I don't think there's much to be gained in Afghanistan. We need to focus on domestic issues for a while.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/100616-energy-afghanistan-lithium/

 

[Lemon law]

A population always has the government it has earned. I don't think there's much to be gained in Afghanistan. We need to focus on domestic issues for a while.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hardly think that is a viable contention, it certainly was not the US idea in invading Iraq to rid it of Saddam Huessein. Nor can we say the USA failed in getting rid of the Nazis or the Tojo governments post WW2 and replacing it with better governments. Huge US wins there.

But it somewhat agreed, the USA needs to focus on domestic issues rather than try to nation build on the cheap. Be willing to go big or stay at home, because going small always backfires.

 

[Nebor]

To start out with, Nebor says, "The Taliban never sends representatives, they send rockets." Wrong again Nebor, you must have Afghanistan confused with Gaza. The Taliban has the run of the place and does not need to send inaccurate annoyance rockets when they have much better weapons.

Gee, you're right. I must have confused the rocket that impacted 900m away from me with one that went off in Gaza. Good call. Good call.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10212285.stm

 

[werepossum]

Gee, you're right. I must have confused the rocket that impacted 900m away from me with one that went off in Gaza. Good call. Good call.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10212285.stm

LOL! Ownage.

Lemon is representative of a prevalent leftist view: no matter what the USA and the West do they are wrong, it just remains to be seen how they are wrong. The Taliban will never negotiate in good faith with, or stop fighting, the USA and the coalition. The only workable solutions are to kill every Taliban-affiliated clan member (including women and children) or to buy time for those opposed to the Taliban to become strong enough to defeat them while recognizing that their opposition will not be for the reasons we might want. The warlords fighting for the Taliban will make peace with those fighting against the Taliban once we leave AND once they are convinced they can't win. These are people that switch sides in mid-battle - but only amongst themselves.

 

[palehorse]

Gee, you're right. I must have confused the rocket that impacted 900m away from me with one that went off in Gaza. Good call. Good call.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10212285.stm

LL has never understood the Taliban, that much is obvious.

You need to realize that everything LL thinks he knows about the world was "learned" from the surfing the Internet or watching TV.

 

[Lemon law]

Firing one or two occasional rockets does not constitute a Taliban reliance on rockets. Nor is the Taliban of today the same as the Taliban we fought initially. But in terms of Palehorse experience, when he was in Afghanistan Nato kept losing and making negative progress.

But in fairness to palehorse, he had his plan for Nato to win in Afghanistan, Nato never tried his plan, partly because they never had a tiny fraction of the resources needed to implement it nor would it fly in Pakistan. But for five years now every prediction I have made regarding Afghanistan has proved to be basically right. Partly because werepossim may be right in saying, "Lemon is representative of a prevalent leftist view:", and we look at from the point of the view of the Afghan people, and military types look at it from the point of view of military power. The latter point of view may work fine in a conventional war, but as we can see in both Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, no amount of military power can make up for a lack of understanding of the human element.

Its not hard to understand why Nato is losing in Afghanistan, we use our own military power in totally counterproductive ways. Now its time to see if General Petraeus has a better way or not. But unless Obama and Petraeus radically change tactics, its not hard to predict, we will soon be at the end of Obama's stated out if Afghanistan by 2012 semi promise with no forward progress.

Has the USA even learned anything from Vietnam?

 

[chucky2]

The only thing the USA should have learnt from Vietnam is 1.) don't allow media to f*ck your support for a war back home, 2.) don't half@ss a war in respect to attacking military targets, and 3.) don't let politicians make military decisions the military should be making.

Had those 3 things been followed properly for Vietnam, we would have won that war. Not that we couldn't have likely avoided it altogether, but, that's a whole nother thread.

Your predictions are meaningless btw...it's like a kid watching a tree being felled, and saying with all the vast knowledge of a kid, "I bet it's going to make a big noise when it falls"....so the tree is felled, it makes a big noise, and the know it all kid says, "I told you so!". Wow....that kid is super F'ing smart right?

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Your problem chucky2 is that you don't understand the difference between winning a war, and winning a military occupation. By your definition we won in Vietnam, won in Afghanistan, and won by deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

But once the war is won, winning is meaningless unless the step 2 winning the military occupation occurs, because failing that step 2, a new bigger forest of trees just grow up to replace the one tree just felled. Little boys like Chucky2 and GWB fail to understand
that crucial distinction lesson from world history.

 

[chucky2]

Sometimes I wonder if you stick your fingers in electrical outlets to keep your brain going, you just don't seem to get it:

We lost militarily in Vietnam. Why you would ever think that by my, or any other sane persons, definition we won Vietnam, I cannot fathom. That you actually wrote that, right there, shows you are so far out in the loony land as to be a neighbor to Moonie.

We did win Iraq, for the most part, in the military sense. The problem with Iraq is that 1) we had no infrastructure package to provide for the Iraqi's, which would have gone a trillion times farther for establishing goodwiill with them than 2) we left them to govern themselves, yet the people used to governing weren't at all too popular, and the ones that did step up had/have corruption and are/were incompetant (worse than our own politicians, if that can even be believed), and 3) again allowed media to expose small incidences (in the grand scheme of things) for media gain that led to the erosion of goodwill. 1 led to harder than necessary conditions on the Iraqi, 2 led to let down of Iraqi expectations and furthering of anger, and 3 stoked it so as to help push more over the edge.

You could say Afghanistan is the same way, except not so much of #3 - yet.

Military Occupation is great LL, Yes, definitely that's great to pull off. But when the Politicians - who's single greatest worry is being re-elected - call for 500k-600k troops, guess what would happen? The media, along with every libtard and peacenik, would whip the public into a frenzy, the public mob would go apeshit, and there goes the politicians.

The Politicians know this. So they try and have the military accomplish the mission with the least amount of troops possible - all without giving them the military freedom to win at all costs...since those costs end up being civilian lives.

That doesn't even touch on the corruption in these peoples own governments, which, short of sparking a whole nother shitstorm of a war if we nullified their elected government so as to try and get a better one in (but, from where?!?!), constantly and consistently F's their own people over through said corruption and/or incompetance.

Men that work for a living understand all this, while little boys like LL proudly tell anyone who listens they know trees make loud sounds when they hit the ground.

What I don't understand about you is you actually believe a.) that there'd ever be support from the apathetic American people who get their information from a media not interested in presenting an analytical truth to them, but instead, all for ratings, to send 500k of our troops to these places and b.) actually believe you telling the board here that it's bad their elected officials are corrupt and that we need to deliver something good the Afghanistans - all while skipping over that will not be possible w/o the security of a. which will never happen - is something all of us already know.

In short: No shit!

Chuck

 

[Lemon law]

Chucky2, as we both call each other little boys, we shed heat and no light.

Maybe part of your problem is that you are acting like our various US military occupations are unique in history. When in fact, various nations have done the same military occupations well before the dawn of recorded history and with totally mixed results and mixed motives.

Military technology keeps getting better and better, but human Psychology has not changed a bit from the time of Adam and Eve.

We just happen to be living at a time when the last vestiges of European colonialism is dying its final death in its last stronghold which just happens to be the Islamic world.

We can regard European style colonialism as a total evil force if we are naive, but still on the plus side, Colonialism been a force that has brought modernity to the whole world.

But still the end of an era is apparent, Colonialism is a dead and spent force, And will the USA adapt to a new world, or will we fight against changes we cannot stop.

 

[Trianon]

The general decided to retire?

 

[Lemon law]

The general decided to retire?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you perhaps referring to today's announcement that Gen McCrystal will retire from the US military?

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010...ghanistan-usa-mcchrystal.html?ref=global-home

Age 55 is a little young to retire, but to some extent he might as well, his military career is dead unless some subsequent President chooses to let him out of the doghouse.

But as a retired military officer he also is now free from any onus to refrain from commenting on his former commander and chief as he may seek to vindicate himself in some sort of possible new political career. Or he could do what many retired generals do, and seek his fortune in corporate consulting.

But I somewhat suggest, the McCrystal options should perhaps be better discussed in another thread. And perhaps delay that new thread until after we get some indication of what McCrystal plans to do.

 

[jonks]

Cute that the immediate response from the right here was that Obama was an idiot for firing Mac but after a day of Fox n Co/GOP response agreeing it was necessary all such posts dried up.

 

[Nebor]

I think we just accepted what happened and moved on. It was a mistake, no doubt. P4 has the exact same COIN mentality as McChrystal. So nothing will change really, but we'll still have to deal with the enormous friction of a command change.

Guess what most of the military establishment has been doing in Kabul this week, and will be doing next week? Rearranging and rebuilding power point slides to meet the new command guidance for how things are supposed to look, and changing the information presented from the format that the old staff wanted it in to the format that the new staff wants it in. The smallest inconvenience will be taking an entire day to show P4 around and explain to him exactly what we do, what our major issues are, etc.

If McChrystal would have kept his mouth shut around the reporter, or the reporter would have realized that a few sensational magazine sales weren't worth the cost to the war effort, we wouldn't be jumping through hoops right now.

 

[shira]

LL has never understood the Taliban, that much is obvious.

You need to realize that everything LL thinks he knows about the world was "learned" from the surfing the Internet or watching TV.

And you, of course, understand the Taliban completely because you're fluent in Pashto and you've spent many years living among them in Afghanistan.

 

[werepossum]

Cute that the immediate response from the right here was that Obama was an idiot for firing Mac but after a day of Fox n Co/GOP response agreeing it was necessary all such posts dried up.

If it makes you feel any better I still think the Messiah is an idiot for firing McChrystal, although he did have justification. He had an opportunity to show the world that his commitment to the mission was bigger than his ego. He failed, of course. There is no point in endlessly repeating that though, and anyway of the two I prefer Petreaus - not that I am qualified to choose between them or have anything but complete respect for McChrystal.

 

[Nebor]

And you, of course, understand the Taliban completely because you're fluent in Pashto and you've spent many years living among them in Afghanistan.

All of the "important" (relatively speaking, none of them are as important as a TCBY cashier in Tennessee) people in Afghanistan speak Dari. And odds are, since Palehorse has been in the military for a few years, he's spent at least a few years in Afghanistan.

 

[Narmer]

All of the "important" (relatively speaking, none of them are as important as a TCBY cashier in Tennessee) people in Afghanistan speak Dari. And odds are, since Palehorse has been in the military for a few years, he's spent at least a few years in Afghanistan.

Since you're there right now, what do you see happening once we leave?

 

[Lemon law]

Where does this idea come from, namely the assertion that one can not possibly understand a war unless they are in the War and Stationed there.

In the case of Vietnam, we had as many as 500,000 troops, and over the years at least 2.6 million different US soldiers fought in that war. And with a huge diversity of skill sets, from raw draftees up to officers with decades of military service.

But for all that experience and numbers, what good did that do, when we failed to even bother to try to understand the Vietnamese people and their viewpoints. Many many people who never came within 10,000 miles of Vietnam said, during the Vietnam war, that the current US strategy would not work and why, and if nothing else, they did not have to be there to be proven correct.

As someone who still thinks Nato can win in Afghanistan, I hardly am thrilled with many of the US soldiers sent there, their skills sets, and their beliefs. Many of those people are not Nato military assets, they are simply huge Nato military liabilities. Certainly not liabilities in the Charles Grander and Lynde England class, but liabilities
none the less.

 

[dahunan]

Who FUCKED IT UP to begin with

Was that Saddam Hussein or George Bush.. meaning... who stripped Afghanistan of the troops necessary and sent to them to sweet crudesville?

 

[mav451]

If it makes you feel any better I still think the Messiah is an idiot for firing McChrystal, although he did have justification. He had an opportunity to show the world that his commitment to the mission was bigger than his ego. He failed, of course. There is no point in endlessly repeating that though, and anyway of the two I prefer Petreaus - not that I am qualified to choose between them or have anything but complete respect for McChrystal.

Why are we still saying this is about ego? Change out BO and say a general said some bad words to Bush during his term. Would it also be ego then?

 

[piasabird]

I am a conservative and I do not think there is anything in Afghanistan worthy of our money or efforts. Are we there to defend their poppie fields or what? Most of the Taliban infested areas should just be obliterated. If people like the taliban then they deserve to die. Since we cant fully defend ourselves, just get the hell out. It is not worth killing our soldiers to fight a war with liberal rules and restrictions on how they can use your weapons. Start killing and blowing things up or get out now.