SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (271687)12/2/2009 5:00:40 PM
From: SARMAN3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
With all due respect, you are still out to lunch on this issue.
Too many advantages? Look we threw out the original Taliban with SpecOps and suitcases of money passed out to various tribal factions.
Crap, the Talibans keep coming back, what's up with that?

That took down the Taliban, but it didn't create a replacement government.
Very well thought invasion.

So now you're telling us that the Taliban have more of an ability to "buy off" the tribal leaders?
Apparently so.

It's not realistic to believe the insurgents are particularly "nationalistic". They are tribal groups ruled by warlord chieftains in most cases, each seeking to dominate, or protect themselves from, their rivals.
So what do you suggest that we do? risk more lives?

And this is the case even within the Pashtun tribes. There has been a nationalistic trend within the Pashtun nation for decades, but they can't seem to unify behind anything. Islamic Jihadism IS a potential force behind which they might find common cause, but I doubt that few of them would prefer the strict Taliban interpretation of Sharia law, over what they currently employ. People just do not like to go from freedom to restriction and oppression. Once they feel entitlement, they are loath to give it up.
True, but we are doing there is killing more innocent Afghanis.

Entitlement is a MORE POWERFUL FORCE than anything you've ever seen. Because entitlement represents self-realization as an individual. And that individual begins to realize they have individual rights, and not just rights that are arbitrarily bestowed upon them by a particular ruler.
True, but I beg the question, we are not allowing the entitlement, we are rigging elections to have our lapdog in power.

But as a German General was once quoted.. "The reason Americans do so well in war is because WAR IS CHAOS and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis".
That was then, not now. We are fighting an Asymmetric war.

IOW, we are adaptable. We take initiative to find solutions for battlefield problems. We alter our tactics to fit the local situation, not the training manuals. We improvise new weapons or tools to counter any enemy advantage.
Just in theory. You want to win the war in Afghanistan, you need to win the heart and minds of the people. So far we are doing a lousy job.

Certainly not in all cases and that's why it's critical to broadcast far and wide that the sooner they stand up as a nation and a people to govern themselves, the sooner we're out of there.
I pray that you are correct, unfortunately we lost sight of the mission. One day we want to fight AQ, the next day we want to fight the Taliban, then we want to fight in Pakistan, then we want to burn all the poppy fields. We have no focus.

Most Arabs didn't believe we'd ever leave, until we actually started withdrawing troops from Iraq. And now we're seeing far more calm than existed when I was there a few years back.
Hmm, have we left yet? or just moved our bases to the desert?

But for most of these tribal leaders in Afghanistan, the Taliban are FOREIGN INVADERS FROM PAKISTAN, where most of their Madrassas are located. So it's those Afghans who we're seeing beginning to stand up and fight, if only because they've experienced what a Taliban government represents.
Again, I hope you are right, but that is not the case.

And Ed.. Jihad is Jihad. If you're a young muslim who's been brainwashed to wage Jihad, you can't stop until the battle is won, or you've cashed in your life and collected your 72 virgins in Paradise. Once you've committed to such a struggle, you know nothing else. You live to die.
ROFLOL, do you the meaning of the word Jihad? I suggest that you learn it first and especially what it mean to Muslims. Sorry, you have to do your own homework, and, do not open the Zionist's book.

As for the rest of your post, I filed it under gibberish. You are rambling and not making any sense.

Think out of the box.. analyze the threat, and counter it with creative thinking that denies your enemy the advantage.
That is too funny. Most of the world hates us as Americans because we are arrogant. Hmmm what is wrong with your statement? We consider them as enemies, you lost sight that they were the ones that were invaded and they consider us as enemies. If history taught us anything, empires go to Afghanistan to die. And we are no exception. Someone here once told you, "we fight because we do not want to lose, they fight because they want to win" there is lots of truth to that statement.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (271687)12/3/2009 12:22:39 PM
From: cnyndwllr2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"No.. every "nationless individual" has to live somewhere and find sanctuary within the borders of another nation."

I know you desperately want to justify nation building on the basis that we can only protect ourselves if we intervene in Iraq, Afghanistan and probably a host of other places where you want to "help" them but you really don't get it, do you?

A nationless individual is someone who doesn't need citizenship or the protection of any nation to further his aims. All he needs is money, a political network and anonymity. In this age of technology he can communicate through others, plan, set actions in motion and function very well from anywhere in the world. He DOES NOT need a government to grant him sanctuary because many regions of the world are chaotic, lawless and corrupt and populated by people who support those with radical, anti-Amercan agendas.

So, as I posted, the real danger from a major attack on the US comes not from those "minor" nations where we have an address and launch coordinates for their leadership, but rather "the real danger comes from nationless people living in the shadows who'd like to initiate the religiously based WW111 scenario that you seem so determined to promote."

It amazes me that you can't seem to comprehend that simple truth. Ed



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (271687)12/3/2009 12:37:33 PM
From: cnyndwllr3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Entitlement is a MORE POWERFUL FORCE than anything you've ever seen. Because entitlement represents self-realization as an individual. And that individual begins to realize they have individual rights, and not just rights that are arbitrarily bestowed upon them by a particular ruler."

Who feeds you this outlandish and childish tripe?

"Entitlement" is a far less powerful force than survival and a whole host of other factors. If, in fact, you satisfy the needs of most people they would gladly trade away their freedom to choose and happily embrace any "particular ruler" who "bestowed upon them" food, sex, health care, housing, freedom from crime, etc.

But keep on advocating for policies based on the flawed assumption that abstract things like "entitlement" are of paramount importance to people who are struggling to survive and feed themselves and whose main hope for a better life is an afterlife. Creating failed policies based on an inability to emphasize with the real life situations of people "not like you" has, after all, been a trademark of your neocon lights. Ed



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (271687)12/3/2009 12:47:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Sure.. as many such actions were. No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

That's all you have to say? How many soldiers drowned before they even got to the beach at Normandy? How many of them never got off the beach, laying trapped in the sand while the German pillboxes used them for target practice. It was a bad landing and there were no contingency plans.

The responsibility falls on the tactical planners and saying that "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" is not an excuse; it's an indictment. If you understand the complexities of war, if you credit the enemy with an ability to plan, innovate and act, then you cannot commit your soldiers to a plan that will leave them in a killing field with no contingency plan.

You keep talking about our soldiers but you seem to have about as much emotional connection to them as you do to the people you want to "help" in the Middle East. Ed



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (271687)12/3/2009 1:24:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"You apparently must have a lot of French blood in you Ed.. Because you always seem ready to surrender at the first sign of the fight getting too tough for your liking."

Yeah, you, Bush and Cheney are the tough ones. You can send our young men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan, see them come home ripped by bullets and bombs, some of them dead, and go on and on about being tough.

I'm not like that. I see people getting killed fighting in my name and I wonder whether the war is worth it, wonder whether the strategy is effective, wonder whether there is another way to protect our interests and question the tactics. And when I see that we're pushing a string or that there is another way to move forward without sacrificing so many or our guys, then I'm all for taking another direction, EVEN WHEN THAT DIRECTION COULD BE SEEN AS A "SURRENDER."

You see, I'm not so dumbshit proud at the expense of others that I won't bring our soldiers back home alive from a conflict where they're sitting ducks and where it's only a matter of time before we have to leave.

"Think out of the box.. analyze the threat, and counter it with creative thinking that denies your enemy the advantage."

OK, here goes:

1, I won't fight a war of occupation on his home turf a half a world way at a tremendous cost that I cannot maintain without dangerously exhausting my military and economic capital.

2, I won't fight him using tactics that increase and magnify the number and the passion of those who will support him logistically and by laying down their lives.

3. I won't take ground that I can't hold in locales where he has cheap, relatively safe and effective strategies that will inflict the death of a thousand cuts on my soldiers.

4. I'll look long and hard at long term ways to neutralize the enemy using cheaper, less bloody and more effective measures to protect my interests, including letting him have what are apparent short term victories when I know that he will not be able to hold that ground, will lose the support of the populations he controls, and will eventually be naked in the eyes of the world.

5. And, as opposed to fighting for his turf, if he ever actually mounted a true offensive against us I'd blow him the hell out of the water and never lose any sleep over it.

You see, I don't believe in playing war. If you HAVE to go to war then win it and get out. If you have to play policeman for another nation, stay home.

But then I don't get a jolt of endorphins fantasizing about my soldiers kicking ass and taking names. Ed