Noble Hero liberates some Afghanis from their horrid lives.

[Tyrannical]

I can't really blame the soldier if he has a deep seated hatred for all Afghans after what he's been through. I'm sure quite a lot of troops would prefer to nuke/nerve gas Afghanistan into submission rather than stick around.

Oh well, just goes to show you that Ron Paul has the right idea on foreign policy.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17330205

It's a top-down thing. Comes from the leadership. Heard that somewhere before...

[Coito ergo sum]

If you recruit volunteers, they are ready to go out there and kill people, no problem. If you draft people and send them overseas and make them carry guns, they will kill to defend themselves.

The problems of a pay army.

'Cause My Lai was just a case of draftees "defending themselves", eh?

Fact is, this is what happens when the troops are given a job that is cynically unachievable.

I tend to agree. It is a total disaster all round - a corrupt allied government, allied troops with itchy trigger fingers when Afghan soldiers (supposed allies) are around, given that several times they have gunned down unsuspecting US, British, French and Australian troops. Not that it excuses this latest shooting, simply that it is an untenable mess, and we should get the fuck out.

funny how it seems to take a so many people a decade to realize what a LOT of people have been saying since day 1. This invasion and occupation will achieve nothing and be a huge, colossal waste of tax payers money. The only objective ever was to line the pockets of the military industrial complex, that's it. I've never heard once the reason for invading Afghanistan or what the definition of victory was.

Victory = Destroy Al Qaeta in Afghanistan.

Secondary victory = Create a stable representative/parliamentary democracy. That's not part of the "war" though, like the Marshal Plan wasn't part of world war 2.

Other reasons to be there: Forward bases. Ability to access Iran from another front, easily, quickly and not only in the air but on the ground as well. Recall the small bit about an Axis of evil. Afghanistan became irrelevant after Al Qaeta were pulverized there, and Iraq went down, leaving Iran and the DPRK still to go. American policy has not changed one iota in that respect, so like it or not, Iran is next on the list.

[Atheist-Lite]

"Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

The only way is to destroy their crops and food supply routes thus inducing a 'accidental' famine like we did with uprisings in India. Show weakness by running now and you risk a domino effect of Islamic fundementalism across the region, and Pakistan has nukes. It is the only way.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

The only way is to destroy their crops and food supply routes thus inducing a 'accidental' famine like we did with uprisings in India. Show weakness by running now and you risk a domino effect of Islamic fundementalism across the region, and Pakistan has nukes. It is the only way.

Have there been any reports of large shipments of salt heading that way?

[sandinista]

b) Atheism - stop pussing footing around Islam, just explain that the reason "we" have F15's and colour TV's and don't live in mud huts etc is because we long ago realised that religion is a nonsense. "There is no god (including) Allah" - get over it.

Except for the fact that that would be coming from a christian nation. The US saying "religion is nonsense"? Whaaa?

Leave warfare to the pros, I say. What better target can there be than someone who's unarmed, untrained and lugging around food, water, children and the like?

heros!

Victory = Destroy Al Qaeta in Afghanistan.

How would you ever know when that was done? Kill one member, create 10.

Secondary victory = Create a stable representative/parliamentary democracy.

A "democracy" in Afghanistan would "vote" for a fundamentalist party. So, not sure how that would work. It's also none of our business what kind of system any other country has. This is just bullshit.

Other reasons to be there: Forward bases.

Main reason there. That along with keeping the US war economy going and lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers and other war profiteers.

American policy has not changed one iota in that respect, so like it or not, Iran is next on the list.

feeling cold in here, we agree on something. US foreign policy hasn't changed since the end of ww2. It's to keep the war economy, the military industrial complex running.

[Coito ergo sum]

Victory = Destroy Al Qaeta in Afghanistan.

How would you ever know when that was done? Kill one member, create 10.

We did it already. Al Qaeta was based there. We asked the Taliban to turn them over. Refused. We bombed the fuck out of them. We won.

Frankly, by any estimation Afghanistan was an amazing military operation. With very few soldiers, we accomplished the mission, and blew up caves and compounds and kill many many Al Qaeta folks. If folks will recall, in 2001 before we went in, there were all sorts of doom predictions - "graveyard of empires" - many folks didn't think we had the capability to mount the operation, given the isolated geographical location of Afghanistan and the difficulty of the terrain, etc.

Ultimately, going in was not an option anyway. From a geopolitical standpoint, we could not take the kind of unprecedented punch to the jaw that we were given in 2001 without a solid military response. To not go in there and root them out would have been read not as a choice to go a different rouge, but rather as an inability to carry out the operation.

Secondary victory = Create a stable representative/parliamentary democracy.

A "democracy" in Afghanistan would "vote" for a fundamentalist party. So, not sure how that would work. It's also none of our business what kind of system any other country has. This is just bullshit.

That is why it would be a secondary victory. It would be in our interest if that would happen. If it doesn't, though. If they turn into a theocracy again or whatever, and we just leave now, then we still leave the military victor.

Other reasons to be there: Forward bases.

Main reason there. That along with keeping the US war economy going and lining the pockets of weapons manufacturers and other war profiteers.

It is a big reason why we are still there. This is not a secret. The Bush administration came right out and said it many times. People just want to hear what they want hear though. Did they think that the President announcing a GLOBAL war on terrorism, and naming specific focal point countries, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, as being meaningless bluster? When the President does that, he is announcing US policy to the world. That policy has not changed one iota under Obama. Our Defense and Intelligence agencies are still tasked to work diligently to knock down the next two countries - Iran and North Korea. With an opportunity to have bases not just in Iraq but also Afghanistan with which to strike at Iran -- we'd be stupid not to avail ourselves of it.

American policy has not changed one iota in that respect, so like it or not, Iran is next on the list.

feeling cold in here, we agree on something. US foreign policy hasn't changed since the end of ww2. It's to keep the war economy, the military industrial complex running.

Well, I won't go so far as to say US foreign policy hasn't changed since WW2. But, I will say that we are absolutely in places like Diego Garcia, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Iraq, for strategic purposes. It's not just because we like the weather.

[sandinista]

We did it already. Al Qaeta was based there. We asked the Taliban to turn them over. Refused. We bombed the fuck out of them. We won.

won? Not so. Well, depends, again on what is considered "won". The US bombed the shit out of Vietnam and "lost". Again, won and lost are strange terms. I contend that, in Vietnam, the US actually did win because the goal was to destroy the country and that was done. To say that the Afghan war was won is pretty short sighted though. When all the US and allied forces leave (if that ever happens) the country will be back to where it was before the whole thing began. That is not a victory in any sense of the word.

Frankly, by any estimation Afghanistan was an amazing military operation.

haha, well, if you count as "amazing" the largest military on the planet invading a backward 3rd world nation and imposing their will I wouldn't call that amazing. About as amazing as me beating up a 2 year old.

If folks will recall, in 2001 before we went in, there were all sorts of doom predictions - "graveyard of empires"

and judging from the US debt and financial situation those predictions look to be coming true.

Ultimately, going in was not an option anyway. From a geopolitical standpoint, we could not take the kind of unprecedented punch to the jaw that we were given in 2001 without a solid military response. To not go in there and root them out would have been read not as a choice to go a different rouge, but rather as an inability to carry out the operation.

That's baloney. The only option after 2001 was to set in place a 10 year occupation? The better option would have been to make a change in foreign policy to avoid future terrorist actions. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it. The attack should have been treated as a criminal act.

That is why it would be a secondary victory. It would be in our interest if that would happen. If it doesn't, though. If they turn into a theocracy again or whatever, and we just leave now, then we still leave the military victor.

No, not true, if you leave now you leave as a loser in all terms. There is no win in this situation. As long as US foreign policy remains the same, groups will reform in Afghanistan intent on fighting the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

We did it already. Al Qaeta was based there. We asked the Taliban to turn them over. Refused. We bombed the fuck out of them. We won.

won? Not so. Well, depends, again on what is considered "won". The US bombed the shit out of Vietnam and "lost". Again, won and lost are strange terms. I contend that, in Vietnam, the US actually did win because the goal was to destroy the country and that was done. To say that the Afghan war was won is pretty short sighted though. When all the US and allied forces leave (if that ever happens) the country will be back to where it was before the whole thing began. That is not a victory in any sense of the word.

As you said, Sandi, we can't rule Afghanistan after we leave. It's not our "business" what form of government they have. Our victory is in defeating the enemy that attacked us. We did that. Germany and Japan soon became free to do as they pleased after WW2. Had they descended again into fascism, that would not have been a loss for the US. It would have been unfortunate, but the US and the rest of the Allies won WW2, and that victory was not conditional on what Germany and Japan did after the war.

The allies won in World War 1, too, even though Germany was devastated and never recovered until fascism and Hitler took over. Does that mean the UK, US and the rest of the allies "lost" World War 1?

How to define a military victory - well, it seems to me that once you control the territory and can move about with impunity, then you've won. The Taliban government was destroyed, Al Qaeta was destroyed. What we have now are different folks fighting as insurgents.

Frankly, by any estimation Afghanistan was an amazing military operation.

haha, well, if you count as "amazing" the largest military on the planet invading a backward 3rd world nation and imposing their will I wouldn't call that amazing. About as amazing as me beating up a 2 year old.

Well, see that is hindsight mockery there. At the time, many folks were predicting that the US would not be able to handle the invasion.

Moreover, yes, amazing. Never in the history of the world had such a far reaching, globally coordinated effort gone down. And, we hardly used any ground troops. A few thousand men with suitcases full of money and bombers launched from the mainland continental US and flown around the world, controlled from Central Command in Tampa and Qatar. I mean - what the US showed it had the capacity to do was something nobody had ever done before.

If folks will recall, in 2001 before we went in, there were all sorts of doom predictions - "graveyard of empires"

and judging from the US debt and financial situation those predictions look to be coming true.

Not because of Afghanistan.

Ultimately, going in was not an option anyway. From a geopolitical standpoint, we could not take the kind of unprecedented punch to the jaw that we were given in 2001 without a solid military response. To not go in there and root them out would have been read not as a choice to go a different rouge, but rather as an inability to carry out the operation.

That's baloney. The only option after 2001 was to set in place a 10 year occupation?

That isn't what I said. A military response against Al Qaeta was what we had to do. Al Qaeta was in Afghanistan. If we let them sit there after attacking New York City and Washington DC, then it would have been interpreted as an inability to respond militarily. It would have been a sign of weakness. They left us with no choice, because one cannot leave the attack they mounted against us unanswered. That was New York City and Washington DC.

We were going in no matter what. Topher Black (of Blackwater fame) stated it to the Russians point blank. The Russians had no choice, and if they wanted to try to stop us from coming, we'd be coming anyway. As Black said, "We are coming...and we're going to put their heads up on sticks." Now - that's what it was -- it was back to a tribal -- you fuck with us and you're fucking dead, reaction. You may react -- "how horrible!" or "how stupid and short sighted!" Maybe -- maybe not - but, that is what it was. And, arguably, that is what it had to be.

The better option would have been to make a change in foreign policy to avoid future terrorist actions.

Like what?

The only way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it. The attack should have been treated as a criminal act.

In my view, it could not be. The US had been trying to do that and did so relative to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the like. However, this was our home soil. This was New York City and Washington DC. EVEN IF we changed middle east policy, it would have to be after we cut the heads of the people who did the attack. We could then change policy on our terms.

If we reacted with, "oh, you attacked NYC and Washington DC and kill innocent US civilians -- oh, o.k., we'll change US policy and hope that we've changed it enough to satisfy the non-governmental organization that attacked us -- and hope they don''t take our failure to respond as a sign of weakness and an inability to respond." That is what you're suggesting, at bottom.

That is why it would be a secondary victory. It would be in our interest if that would happen. If it doesn't, though. If they turn into a theocracy again or whatever, and we just leave now, then we still leave the military victor.

No, not true, if you leave now you leave as a loser in all terms. There is no win in this situation. As long as US foreign policy remains the same, groups will reform in Afghanistan intent on fighting the US.

You just redefine victory as something unattainable. You say "it's not our business what government they have," and then you say there is no victory unless we set them up with a certain favorable government. You can't have it both ways.

You'll need to be specific about US foreign policy and which groups want what policies to change. It is no solution, in my view, to change American policy at the behest of a group of non-governmental actors. We change one policy, and then another group is going to rise up and claim that we're still not acting right. Moreover, we can't put ourselves in a position where every group with a gripe or demand thinks all it has to do is blow some people up and the US will cave in to their demands.

[Atheist-Lite]

American's are starting to sound like the French with their 'victories'. Wave a white flag and go home saying we've won, because it is all how you define victory ain't it?

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

b) Atheism - stop pussing footing around Islam, just explain that the reason "we" have F15's and colour TV's and don't live in mud huts etc is because we long ago realised that religion is a nonsense. "There is no god (including) Allah" - get over it.

Except for the fact that that would be coming from a christian nation. The US saying "religion is nonsense"? Whaaa?

I didn't say the US would take my suggestions! - but given they have spent the last 10 years (whilst constantly winning ) saying they are not Christian Crusaders would not be much of a stretch to point out that Religion is not a basis for moving from Mud Hut to a Condo......of course the reason the US does not say this is because the Taliban and Al Quaeda are correct in stating that the US is a Christian Fundie country. God Bless America .

If the US recognised that the age of there Empire is drawing to a close could avoid the fate of all other empires (including the English) - but no Empire has ever been able to see what is before own nose, even if everyone else can.


Not saying that is neccessarily a good thing for us Europeans, but we have nuclear weapons and are an area worth trading with - plus, when push comes to shove, we have an inherent ability to kill foreigners on an industrial scale (hey, we've had enough practice on each other!).....as long as we avoid the mistakes of the US and UK in mongolising society.

Within 50 years the Chinese will have an aircraft carrier battlegroup parked off Washington DC on a permanent "courtesy" mission - whilst all the little brown people ashore swap stories of the good old days before having a siesta or selling each other crack.

[amused]

Victory in the Middle East for the US means the establishment of governments there that can last long enough for US businesses to get enough ROI on oil extraction investments to make it worthwhile. Put them in place, prop them up, keep them dependent on us for their very existence, step away when they fail, rinse, repeat.

[Coito ergo sum]

Victory in the Middle East for the US means the establishment of governments there that can last long enough for US businesses to get enough ROI on oil extraction investments to make it worthwhile. Put them in place, prop them up, keep them dependent on us for their very existence, step away when they fail, rinse, repeat.

Neat little nonsense package.

[Tyrannical]

No one was really willing to do what it takes to win Afghanistan. Too often we think about "What would Jesus do?" when we should be asking "What would Rome do?"

Afghanistan is more of a tribal based society rather than a united country. Find out which tribes are willing to ally with you, and which ones are not.
The loudest of the against you tribes, slaughter as many of them as you can as quickly as possible via nerve gas until that tribe is virtually destroyed and then use an allied tribe to finish the conquest and collect what ever spoils they want. Repeat as needed.

[Clinton Huxley]

CES is correct, above - the US did blow up a lot of caves in Afghanistan. The War on Caves was a total success....