Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:27 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Actually, I can't remember the last time a political party in the UK stood for election on a manifesto that included going and killing people and allowing a few of ours to be killed too.

And when a party that was in government stood for re-election, having taken us into war, then personally I didn't vote for it – or for a leader who would take us to war. But then – how did you so intelligently phrase it? – ah yes: I obviously have a "fragile" Western mindset.

Perhaps you did vote for such a party/government/leader and are 'willing (able?) to accept and truly understand the inevitable consequences'.

How does it feel, voting for a government that would (is) send people to their deaths while killing others, including entirely innocent men, women and children?

Did you consider those who were appalled about and protested against the Iraq war, with it's images of small children with their heads blown in half (bloody interfering media) as having minds that had become "fragile" in a particularly Western way? (BTW, this doesn't half sound like religious nutters railing at the degenerate West)

And if some government – even our own – did that to your family, presumably you wouldn't be at all "fragile" yourself, but would shrug a bit and accept it? After all, we elect leaders who decide to send us to war – and presumably others do the same.

And "sarcasm"? Well, what do you expect from those with "fragile" minds, eh?

Did I say a political party had a manifesto for war? No. Yet somehow war keeps cropping up. Why? Because events occur and our politicians have made the decision to go to war. And who voted them in? We did. You, as an individual may not have, but we, as a nation, did.

The military are there to do a job which at the sharp end involves killing people, and almost as inevitably, taking casualties. I recall a military commander saying that in WW1, the loss of even dozens of troops in a single day was often barely considered worthy of mention on the larger scale. It was considered and accepted as a consequence of war. That lessened slightly in WW2 as the collective memory recalled the numbers lost only 20+ years earlier. As time went on, amongst other instances we saw the enormous impact of media footage in Vietnam and how the 1991 Gulf War ground to a premature halt thanks largely to footage of the 'Highway of Death'.

6 British troops died recently in one explosion and there was almost a national outpouring of grief. That's how the collective mindset has changed - I'm certainly not saying it's a bad thing but what it does do is make the widespread perception and expectation of war completely unrealistic.

I actually think you understand the point. But keep on ranting, it's entertaining.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:53 pm  

On the rare occasions I pop in here, invariably La Mint is having an attack of the vapours over something. Anything. Animal, vegetable, mineral. It doesn't really matter, she'll be off on one!

Is such behaviour the norm dahn sarf?

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:02 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Did I say a political party had a manifesto for war?..

So the "leaders" you mentioned that we elect are not connected to political parties, manifestos etc?

Cronus wrote:

... Yet somehow war keeps cropping up. Why? Because events occur and our politicians have made the decision to go to war...

Gee. That must have taken a bit of working out.

Cronus wrote:

... And who voted them in? We did. You, as an individual may not have, but we, as a nation, did...

Yeah. Political parties. The ones you didn't mention.

Cronus wrote:

The military are there to do a job which at the sharp end involves killing people and almost as inevitably, taking casualties....

More rocket science.

I can't see anyone who has disputed that. This issue is whether they should be there in the first place. Because "events occur" – like lies, that sort of thing.

You, as you have made quite clear – think that this war has been a rip-roaring success. Plenty of others do not. And therefore, they are particularly likely to consider that the lives that have been lost have been wasted. It is not "fragile" to think so. We are supposed to have learnt stuff and grown up a bit and realised that war is not the solution to every problem. Unfortunately, some people haven't – and as long as that's the case, more lives will be wasted.

Cronus wrote:

I recall a military commander saying that in WW1, the loss of even dozens of troops in a single day was often barely considered worthy of mention on the larger scale. It was considered and accepted as a consequence of war. That lessened slightly in WW2 as the collective memory recalled the numbers lost only 20+ years earlier. As time went on, amongst other instances we saw the enormous impact of media footage in Vietnam and how the 1991 Gulf War ground to a premature halt thanks largely to footage of the 'Highway of Death'.

You mention the increase in footage: it's a legitimate point. I'd add the immediacy of news coverage etc as well. And there might be something else at play here – such as what sort of percentage of the public sees the conflict in question as legitimate or sees the reasons given for that conflict as lies or as illegitimate or don't fall for the jingoism etc.

But to consider the human cost of war as 'wasted lives', for instance, and to be appalled by it – particularly if one does not consider the conflict legitimate – is not the sign of a 'fragile' mind.

Cronus wrote:

6 British troops died recently in one explosion and there was almost a national outpouring of grief. That's how the collective mindset has changed - I'm certainly not saying it's a bad thing but what it does do is make the widespread perception and expectation of war completely unrealistic...[./quote]

And people were appalled – in one case, that a young man who was only 8 when the war started, had been killed? How "fragile" of them.

Cronus wrote:

I actually think you understand the point. But keep on ranting, it's entertaining.

Actually, I don't think you realise how pathetic it is to read someone declaring that people who find the waste of life appalling – and a waste – are "fragile". And how much some of your other comments suggest someone who thinks war is always acceptable and, with it, such a waste.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:31 pm  

Cronus wrote: Absolute rubbish. 'The people of Afghanistan' are around 29.8 million multi-ethnic and multi-lingual Afghans, including 2.7 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and consisting of different groups such as Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, etc The Taliban is an Islamist militant and political group made up of predominantly Sunni Muslim Pashtuns, and opposed by Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks, and Turkmen. They are not 'the people of Afghanistan'. They are 'some people of Afghanistan' who are not positively supported by the majority of the population. It's a bit like calling The English Defence League, 'the people of England'. This is just tedious. The "people" of England fought Hitler's Germany. Does this mean each person picked up a rifle, stuck a bullet in the chamber and fired? No. Regardless of whether the Taliban are representative of the entire population they certainly form a significant element of it. And let's not pretend their politics, religious views etc. differ all that much from other Afghans - with the exception of those living in the cities who are (largely) protected and live more Westernised existences. As Burke says in his book - it is a mistake to think the Taliban's practices are anything new. They are not. So yes - the people of Afghanistan are fighting invaders. Not all of them. But a good deal, yes. And a good deal more sympathise with them - which is why the Taliban can blend in and out of the surrounding regions. If they were so far from the norm they couldn't and wouldn't. No, there's not a good argument for that at all, given their well documented and well organised history. Such a 'hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation' could never have waged an efficient campaign that saw them take swathes of the country and finally Kabul. That they and they supporters may be currently fragmented due to foreign forces in their midst is irrelevant. The movement still has its clearly defined leaders and determinations and immediately the West leaves, they will reform into a more definite group. Well, that's not what Burke says. And I'm willing to bet my house he knows a hell of a lot more about Afghanistan than you do. Bin Laden was incredibly familiar with the Taliban - of course he was, Really? He fought in Afghanistan. Provided finance. Munitions etc. And he was familiar with them? Give over! The issue here is the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban (especially Mullah Omar) around the time of 9/11 - NOT when he was admitted to the country (even then he was viewed with suspicion). Burke (and Robert Fisk) have both talked extensively about Omar's disdain for Bin Laden and there is at least some evidence they attempted to bump him off after he messed once too often in domestic affairs (assassinations, kidnappings etc.) Yet Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were presented in the media (at the behest of US and UK governments) as joined at the hip - ideologically speaking. Without that link and sans AQ as an effective fighting force (which Burke's research puts at 2004!) there is now no reason to be in Afghanistan. None. And yes, it's true the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over (with conditions) - but this was done very reluctantly, and there's no evidence they weren't simply stalling for time, especially in 2001 when they knew a storm was definitely coming yet they still tried to negotiate and make deals. Plus at all times they had the ISI in the background snapping at their heels and working to their own agenda. See above. On the ground many Taliban (especially foot soldiers and those not in the top echelons of power) disliked Al Qaeda simply because Al Qaeda were mainly Arabs who threw their weight and money around. Indeed, there were indications around 2005 that even Al Qaeda was going through a split along these lines as Central Asian AQ began to severely resent Arab AQ, who had been hiding on their patch for years, yet treating it as their own. All this is meaningless without numbers. HOW MANY is "Central Asian AQ"? And who is providing the numbers? Smart munitions are incredibly smart, but they're only as accurate as the person aiming them. We want 'our boys' safe from harm's way and out of the firing line, yet we baulk at the inevitable consequences of firing munitions on the basis of long-range drone/aircraft footage. We can't have it both ways. We can have our boys safe by not putting them in harm's way in the first place. As rumplestiltskin already posted, you seem to avoid the facts. And I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq in your response to him, when your statement concerned 'casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan'. I brought up Iraq because it was part of a two-front campaign predicated on similar lies. And what rumplestiltskin provided was a very small subset of the overall figure. As HRW (and other groups) freely admit - the true figures are much higher (and not solely because of munitions). Our Western mindset is so fragile we recoil from the thought of absolutely ruthless action and the risk of TV footage of body bags. We're also obsessed with 'rebuilding', as if Afghanistan was in a pristine state before 9/11. If we'd really wanted to finish the job what should have happened was thousands of troops dropped along the borders, the mountain passes and roads secured, strike forces dropped in Al Qaeda hotspots, the Taliban wiped out and Al Qaeda encircled and destroyed. Job done, out we get, leave them to it. Yet we are so sensitive to media exposure and press disapproval we set unrealistic limitations on our armed forces and expect the world - and that's why we've ended up in the quagmire. No, we ended up in the quagmire because we chose to walk into it. Period. And it's not like we didn't know the quagmire existed. Afghanistan 's terrain and conditions have been a great equalizer - from the British through to the Russians and now to us. As for fighting the war differently, you're making a classic error in reasoning by constructing your optimal tactical solution after the fact and without any consideration given to whether the other side might have ideas of their own. We could fight a hundred different ways and still end up where we are today. As for "public sensitivities" (do I hear Colonel Kurtz in the background?) - the lack of such didn't do the Spartans many favours, nor the Third Reich. As it happens, we might have just been handed to perfect exit strategy. Karzai wants Western forces out of rural areas and a quicker transfer of power to the Afghan army, and the Taliban aren't talking. Fine, give them what they want and get out. They can get back to their usual tribal and Islamist in-fighting. Don't be silly. Western forces are going nowhere. For a start the Afghan army (as the Pentagon's own man clearly states) is effectively useless and is just as likely to turn on its master as anything else. Sure, US and UK forces might pull out. But only because Rumsfeld laid the groundwork for privatised warfare meaning the same guys will be fighting and dying there for another decade - but this time wearing the colours of "security" (mercenary) corporations who, unlike the military, are completely beyond the reach of domestic justice, not counted in death and wounded statistics etc. etc. Consider the number of mercs currently running around in Iraq. The only guarantee is that Afghanistan will get a lot worse and the West will kop the blame for the next 50 years, whatever happens. As it should.

Cronus wrote: Absolute rubbish. 'The people of Afghanistan' are around 29.8 million multi-ethnic and multi-lingual Afghans, including 2.7 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and consisting of different groups such as Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Baloch, etc The Taliban is an Islamist militant and political group made up of predominantly Sunni Muslim Pashtuns, and opposed by Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks, and Turkmen. They are not 'the people of Afghanistan'. They are 'some people of Afghanistan' who are not positively supported by the majority of the population. It's a bit like calling The English Defence League, 'the people of England'. This is just tedious. The "people" of England fought Hitler's Germany. Does this mean each person picked up a rifle, stuck a bullet in the chamber and fired? No. Regardless of whether the Taliban are representative of the entire population they certainly form a significant element of it. And let's not pretend their politics, religious views etc. differ all that much from other Afghans - with the exception of those living in the cities who are (largely) protected and live more Westernised existences. As Burke says in his book - it is a mistake to think the Taliban's practices are anything new. They are not. So yes - the people of Afghanistan are fighting invaders. Not all of them. But a good deal, yes. And a good deal more sympathise with them - which is why the Taliban can blend in and out of the surrounding regions. If they were so far from the norm they couldn't and wouldn't. No, there's not a good argument for that at all, given their well documented and well organised history. Such a 'hopelessly indefinite conceptual creation' could never have waged an efficient campaign that saw them take swathes of the country and finally Kabul. That they and they supporters may be currently fragmented due to foreign forces in their midst is irrelevant. The movement still has its clearly defined leaders and determinations and immediately the West leaves, they will reform into a more definite group. Well, that's not what Burke says. And I'm willing to bet my house he knows a hell of a lot more about Afghanistan than you do. Bin Laden was incredibly familiar with the Taliban - of course he was, Really? He fought in Afghanistan. Provided finance. Munitions etc. And he was familiar with them? Give over! The issue here is the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban (especially Mullah Omar) around the time of 9/11 - NOT when he was admitted to the country (even then he was viewed with suspicion). Burke (and Robert Fisk) have both talked extensively about Omar's disdain for Bin Laden and there is at least some evidence they attempted to bump him off after he messed once too often in domestic affairs (assassinations, kidnappings etc.) Yet Mullah Omar and Bin Laden were presented in the media (at the behest of US and UK governments) as joined at the hip - ideologically speaking. Without that link and sans AQ as an effective fighting force (which Burke's research puts at 2004!) there is now no reason to be in Afghanistan. None. And yes, it's true the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over (with conditions) - but this was done very reluctantly, and there's no evidence they weren't simply stalling for time, especially in 2001 when they knew a storm was definitely coming yet they still tried to negotiate and make deals. Plus at all times they had the ISI in the background snapping at their heels and working to their own agenda. See above. On the ground many Taliban (especially foot soldiers and those not in the top echelons of power) disliked Al Qaeda simply because Al Qaeda were mainly Arabs who threw their weight and money around. Indeed, there were indications around 2005 that even Al Qaeda was going through a split along these lines as Central Asian AQ began to severely resent Arab AQ, who had been hiding on their patch for years, yet treating it as their own. All this is meaningless without numbers. HOW MANY is "Central Asian AQ"? And who is providing the numbers? Smart munitions are incredibly smart, but they're only as accurate as the person aiming them. We want 'our boys' safe from harm's way and out of the firing line, yet we baulk at the inevitable consequences of firing munitions on the basis of long-range drone/aircraft footage. We can't have it both ways. We can have our boys safe by not putting them in harm's way in the first place. As rumplestiltskin already posted, you seem to avoid the facts. And I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq in your response to him, when your statement concerned 'casualty rates quoted by various independent organisations for Afghanistan'. I brought up Iraq because it was part of a two-front campaign predicated on similar lies. And what rumplestiltskin provided was a very small subset of the overall figure. As HRW (and other groups) freely admit - the true figures are much higher (and not solely because of munitions). Our Western mindset is so fragile we recoil from the thought of absolutely ruthless action and the risk of TV footage of body bags. We're also obsessed with 'rebuilding', as if Afghanistan was in a pristine state before 9/11. If we'd really wanted to finish the job what should have happened was thousands of troops dropped along the borders, the mountain passes and roads secured, strike forces dropped in Al Qaeda hotspots, the Taliban wiped out and Al Qaeda encircled and destroyed. Job done, out we get, leave them to it. Yet we are so sensitive to media exposure and press disapproval we set unrealistic limitations on our armed forces and expect the world - and that's why we've ended up in the quagmire. No, we ended up in the quagmire because we chose to walk into it. Period. And it's not like we didn't know the quagmire existed. Afghanistan 's terrain and conditions have been a great equalizer - from the British through to the Russians and now to us. As for fighting the war differently, you're making a classic error in reasoning by constructing your optimal tactical solution after the fact and without any consideration given to whether the other side might have ideas of their own. We could fight a hundred different ways and still end up where we are today. As for "public sensitivities" (do I hear Colonel Kurtz in the background?) - the lack of such didn't do the Spartans many favours, nor the Third Reich. As it happens, we might have just been handed to perfect exit strategy. Karzai wants Western forces out of rural areas and a quicker transfer of power to the Afghan army, and the Taliban aren't talking. Fine, give them what they want and get out. They can get back to their usual tribal and Islamist in-fighting. Don't be silly. Western forces are going nowhere. For a start the Afghan army (as the Pentagon's own man clearly states) is effectively useless and is just as likely to turn on its master as anything else. Sure, US and UK forces might pull out. But only because Rumsfeld laid the groundwork for privatised warfare meaning the same guys will be fighting and dying there for another decade - but this time wearing the colours of "security" (mercenary) corporations who, unlike the military, are completely beyond the reach of domestic justice, not counted in death and wounded statistics etc. etc. Consider the number of mercs currently running around in Iraq. The only guarantee is that Afghanistan will get a lot worse and the West will kop the blame for the next 50 years, whatever happens. As it should.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:18 pm  

To be honest Mugwump, I think you've nailed your colours too firmly to Burke's mast.For an alternative and possibly more realistic viewpoint, have a read of Max Benitz's excellent "Six months without a Sunday" which is an account of the Scots Guards six month tour on Operation Herrick 12. I recognise a lot of what he says about both the military/social/political setup in Afghanistan, as I have a son serving over there now on Op Herrick 15.

The ISAF troops will most certainly be out in two years, with possibly a small training detachment being retained at Camp Bastion for a timescale measured in months, rather than years.

How will the Afghan Army perform without ISAF? Well, they're certainly brave enough when the proverbial hits the fan, but as with all things in Afghanistan, todays ally can flip over to the other side overnight, and to them, that's normal behaviour. Even for the Taliban. The bigger problem will be the Police Force. Almost universally distrusted, poorly paid, mostly illiterate and staggeringly corrupt, this happy band has the potential to cause a lot of grief.

I suspect that after we leave, within two/three years the Taliban will control some of the Northern Provinces, but that will be all. Karzai and his cohorts will hold the Capital and surrounding areas, and the more prominent Tribal Leaders/drug barons will have there own little fiefdoms.The Army will remain fairly loyal, whilst it gets paid, otherwise i can see it split along tribal lines.

Afghan will revert to its usual traditional ways, with either an AK 47 or a new alliance settling the problem. Pakistan will have a very sticky finger in its internal affairs, and the Chinese will hoover up all the available oil and minerals.

Makes you wonder why we bothered really.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:54 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: To be honest Mugwump, I think you've nailed your colours too firmly to Burke's mast.For an alternative and possibly more realistic viewpoint, have a read of Max Benitz's excellent "Six months without a Sunday" which is an account of the Scots Guards six month tour on Operation Herrick 12. I recognise a lot of what he says about both the military/social/political setup in Afghanistan, as I have a son serving over there now on Op Herrick 15. Burke knows the region well. He's one of the few Western journalists who has covered the region extensively for years, speaks the lingo and has excellent contacts across the entire political spectrum. But most importantly he operates independently and thus outside of the embedded coalition propaganda machine. But there are other excellent journalists. Fisk's region is more towards Israel/Lebanon - but he too has excellent contacts and met Bin Laden twice, I think. Others write for English language publications in India. And then there are guys such as Christian Parenti who, whilst only visiting occasionally, publishes first rate work. I don't know anything about Benitz but if he's embedded I'm really not that much interested. He may well be a perfectly decent guy but journalists attached to, and thus entirely dependent on, the military are automatically suspect. Movie studios don't throw huge junkets for critics because they like them. They do it because they know it will make a negative review much less likely. The same principle stands for war correspondents. If you eat and sleep and fight alongside a bunch of guys who you get to know and like over a period of six months it will take tremendous character to trash them if they deserve it. And if you do possess such be prepared to see your media accreditation revoked at CENTCOM. In any case, what better viewpoint of the military campaign can you take than Daniel Davis' report? The Lt. Col. did two tours of Afghanistan (as well as two in Iraq) and his job was to assess the success of the campaign to the Pentagon. I should point out that Davis is not far from the age where he is entitled to retire with full benefits. With this report he not only risks his job but his pension, too! The ISAF troops will most certainly be out in two years, with possibly a small training detachment being retained at Camp Bastion for a timescale measured in months, rather than years. How will the Afghan Army perform without ISAF? Well, they're certainly brave enough when the proverbial hits the fan, but as with all things in Afghanistan, todays ally can flip over to the other side overnight, and to them, that's normal behaviour. Even for the Taliban. The bigger problem will be the Police Force. Almost universally distrusted, poorly paid, mostly illiterate and staggeringly corrupt, this happy band has the potential to cause a lot of grief. I suspect that after we leave, within two/three years the Taliban will control some of the Northern Provinces, but that will be all. Karzai and his cohorts will hold the Capital and surrounding areas, and the more prominent Tribal Leaders/drug barons will have there own little fiefdoms.The Army will remain fairly loyal, whilst it gets paid, otherwise i can see it split along tribal lines. Afghan will revert to its usual traditional ways, with either an AK 47 or a new alliance settling the problem. Pakistan will have a very sticky finger in its internal affairs, and the Chinese will hoover up all the available oil and minerals. Makes you wonder why we bothered really. I expect ISAF will leave pretty soon. But the merc army will stay. The geopolitics of the region mean it's too important (in the eyes of the US) to walk away. Once Obama is re-elected or the Republicans get in we'll be gearing up for some heavy-duty Iranian action and there's simply no way they'll leave Iran under sanctions with an open border. It's estimated there are anywhere up to one million unaccountable mercs running around in Iraq. We may see a similar figure in Afghanistan.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: To be honest Mugwump, I think you've nailed your colours too firmly to Burke's mast.For an alternative and possibly more realistic viewpoint, have a read of Max Benitz's excellent "Six months without a Sunday" which is an account of the Scots Guards six month tour on Operation Herrick 12. I recognise a lot of what he says about both the military/social/political setup in Afghanistan, as I have a son serving over there now on Op Herrick 15. Burke knows the region well. He's one of the few Western journalists who has covered the region extensively for years, speaks the lingo and has excellent contacts across the entire political spectrum. But most importantly he operates independently and thus outside of the embedded coalition propaganda machine. But there are other excellent journalists. Fisk's region is more towards Israel/Lebanon - but he too has excellent contacts and met Bin Laden twice, I think. Others write for English language publications in India. And then there are guys such as Christian Parenti who, whilst only visiting occasionally, publishes first rate work. I don't know anything about Benitz but if he's embedded I'm really not that much interested. He may well be a perfectly decent guy but journalists attached to, and thus entirely dependent on, the military are automatically suspect. Movie studios don't throw huge junkets for critics because they like them. They do it because they know it will make a negative review much less likely. The same principle stands for war correspondents. If you eat and sleep and fight alongside a bunch of guys who you get to know and like over a period of six months it will take tremendous character to trash them if they deserve it. And if you do possess such be prepared to see your media accreditation revoked at CENTCOM. In any case, what better viewpoint of the military campaign can you take than Daniel Davis' report? The Lt. Col. did two tours of Afghanistan (as well as two in Iraq) and his job was to assess the success of the campaign to the Pentagon. I should point out that Davis is not far from the age where he is entitled to retire with full benefits. With this report he not only risks his job but his pension, too! The ISAF troops will most certainly be out in two years, with possibly a small training detachment being retained at Camp Bastion for a timescale measured in months, rather than years. How will the Afghan Army perform without ISAF? Well, they're certainly brave enough when the proverbial hits the fan, but as with all things in Afghanistan, todays ally can flip over to the other side overnight, and to them, that's normal behaviour. Even for the Taliban. The bigger problem will be the Police Force. Almost universally distrusted, poorly paid, mostly illiterate and staggeringly corrupt, this happy band has the potential to cause a lot of grief. I suspect that after we leave, within two/three years the Taliban will control some of the Northern Provinces, but that will be all. Karzai and his cohorts will hold the Capital and surrounding areas, and the more prominent Tribal Leaders/drug barons will have there own little fiefdoms.The Army will remain fairly loyal, whilst it gets paid, otherwise i can see it split along tribal lines. Afghan will revert to its usual traditional ways, with either an AK 47 or a new alliance settling the problem. Pakistan will have a very sticky finger in its internal affairs, and the Chinese will hoover up all the available oil and minerals. Makes you wonder why we bothered really. I expect ISAF will leave pretty soon. But the merc army will stay. The geopolitics of the region mean it's too important (in the eyes of the US) to walk away. Once Obama is re-elected or the Republicans get in we'll be gearing up for some heavy-duty Iranian action and there's simply no way they'll leave Iran under sanctions with an open border. It's estimated there are anywhere up to one million unaccountable mercs running around in Iraq. We may see a similar figure in Afghanistan.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:19 am  

For those who haven't followed the link - here is the opening paragraph of Davis' report:

"Senior ranking US military leaders have so distorted the truth when communicating with the US Congress and American people in regards to conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become unrecognizable. This deception has damaged America’s credibility among both our allies and enemies, severely limiting our ability to reach a political solution to the war in Afghanistan. It has likely cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars Congress might not otherwise have appropriated had it known the truth, and our senior leaders’ behavior has almost certainly extended the duration of this war. The single greatest penalty our Nation has suffered, however, has been that we have lost the blood, limbs and lives of tens of thousands of American Service Members with little to no gain to our country as a consequence of this deception."

That's about as damning an indictment of a senseless war as you'll find.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:40 am  

Hmmmmm. Middle ranking officer goes on one man crusade after talking to his Pastor, and deciding he knows better than anyone else, could just as easily be the headline. I'm sure there's an element of truth in what he reports, but in the final analysis, its simply one guys personal opinion, and has not attracted a great deal of support, either in Washington or, as you would expect, further up the military food chain. Surely, it is to expected that the best possible spin would be applied to any information released to the public, despite this campaign being the most open and media scrutinised than anything previously reported? The overall lack of progress is there for all to see, but it would take a couple of generations before you could bring about a mindset change in a country as large and poor as Afghanistan. You would have to be extremely naive to expect a one size, instant fix solution to work in this part of the globe. I expect the good Colonel's outrage may in part be fuelled by both the cost in dollars and Army casualties, as much as anything else. After all, is there any Military more Gung Ho/Can Do than the Americans? It would be interesting to see what actual boots on the ground combat experience Davies has under his belt. I suspect he may be what our Stateside chums so charmingly call a "REMF" There is however, well documented and visible evidence in many areas of a return to normality, with the expulsion of insurgents and security being handed over to Afghan Forces. There is already a shift in Military thinking from pursuing an anti insurgency policy, which is very labour intensive, to a more focussed anti terrorist operation. Which is where we came in....

Hmmmmm. Middle ranking officer goes on one man crusade after talking to his Pastor, and deciding he knows better than anyone else, could just as easily be the headline. I'm sure there's an element of truth in what he reports, but in the final analysis, its simply one guys personal opinion, and has not attracted a great deal of support, either in Washington or, as you would expect, further up the military food chain. Surely, it is to expected that the best possible spin would be applied to any information released to the public, despite this campaign being the most open and media scrutinised than anything previously reported? The overall lack of progress is there for all to see, but it would take a couple of generations before you could bring about a mindset change in a country as large and poor as Afghanistan. You would have to be extremely naive to expect a one size, instant fix solution to work in this part of the globe. I expect the good Colonel's outrage may in part be fuelled by both the cost in dollars and Army casualties, as much as anything else. After all, is there any Military more Gung Ho/Can Do than the Americans? It would be interesting to see what actual boots on the ground combat experience Davies has under his belt. I suspect he may be what our Stateside chums so charmingly call a "REMF" There is however, well documented and visible evidence in many areas of a return to normality, with the expulsion of insurgents and security being handed over to Afghan Forces. There is already a shift in Military thinking from pursuing an anti insurgency policy, which is very labour intensive, to a more focussed anti terrorist operation. Which is where we came in....

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:09 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Hmmmmm. Middle ranking officer goes on one man crusade after talking to his Pastor, and deciding he knows better than anyone else, could just as easily be the headline. I'm sure there's an element of truth in what he reports, but in the final analysis, its simply one guys personal opinion, and has not attracted a great deal of support, either in Washington or, as you would expect, further up the military food chain. Surely, it is to expected that the best possible spin would be applied to any information released to the public, despite this campaign being the most open and media scrutinised than anything previously reported? Davis isn't the first officer to come to this conclusion. There are several other well-researched reports if you care to look. I'm not sure what relevance discussions with his pastor have. Maybe you could tell me? And, seriously, what do you expect the military's response to be? There are an awful lot of careers at stake here - not to mention billion dollar arms deals, industry jobs, geopolitical ambitions etc. There were ample well-researched reports writing the Vietnam campaign off as early as the introduction of ground troops. How many saw the light of day until Daniel Ellsberg blew the lid off the deception? Even then they weren't taken seriously. Hell, I could go back to the Battle of Jutland where Jellicoe laughed off criticism of his handling of the Grand Fleet and even went so far as to suppress the report which proved why half-a-dozen of his dreadnoughts blew up with nary a shot being fired in anger. Secrecy and the military go hand in hand. Look, it really comes down to who you think is more likely to understand what conditions are like on the ground in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the New York Times (commonly referred to as American Officials Say - even by other journalists!), five star generals (many of whom have either limited or no combat experience), the TV or the combat veteran with complete access asked to submit a full appraisal of the entire conflict? Surely a middle-ranking officer is the man most likely to see the entire picture? And I should make the point that Davis is by no means a radical lefty. He's as much a part of the establishment as anyone else even if he does have disagreements. TBH, I don't think he goes far enough. There is however, well documented and visible evidence in many areas of a return to normality, with the expulsion of insurgents and security being handed over to Afghan Forces. There is already a shift in Military thinking from pursuing an anti insurgency policy, which is very labour intensive, to a more focussed anti terrorist operation. Well, I've provided some of my evidence. Perhaps you can show me some of yours? Who has provided your "well-documented" evidence? How do you define "normality" etc.? I mean, according to guys like Burke attitudes such as the Taliban's are not that far from normality anyhow.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: Hmmmmm. Middle ranking officer goes on one man crusade after talking to his Pastor, and deciding he knows better than anyone else, could just as easily be the headline. I'm sure there's an element of truth in what he reports, but in the final analysis, its simply one guys personal opinion, and has not attracted a great deal of support, either in Washington or, as you would expect, further up the military food chain. Surely, it is to expected that the best possible spin would be applied to any information released to the public, despite this campaign being the most open and media scrutinised than anything previously reported? Davis isn't the first officer to come to this conclusion. There are several other well-researched reports if you care to look. I'm not sure what relevance discussions with his pastor have. Maybe you could tell me? And, seriously, what do you expect the military's response to be? There are an awful lot of careers at stake here - not to mention billion dollar arms deals, industry jobs, geopolitical ambitions etc. There were ample well-researched reports writing the Vietnam campaign off as early as the introduction of ground troops. How many saw the light of day until Daniel Ellsberg blew the lid off the deception? Even then they weren't taken seriously. Hell, I could go back to the Battle of Jutland where Jellicoe laughed off criticism of his handling of the Grand Fleet and even went so far as to suppress the report which proved why half-a-dozen of his dreadnoughts blew up with nary a shot being fired in anger. Secrecy and the military go hand in hand. Look, it really comes down to who you think is more likely to understand what conditions are like on the ground in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the New York Times (commonly referred to as American Officials Say - even by other journalists!), five star generals (many of whom have either limited or no combat experience), the TV or the combat veteran with complete access asked to submit a full appraisal of the entire conflict? Surely a middle-ranking officer is the man most likely to see the entire picture? And I should make the point that Davis is by no means a radical lefty. He's as much a part of the establishment as anyone else even if he does have disagreements. TBH, I don't think he goes far enough. There is however, well documented and visible evidence in many areas of a return to normality, with the expulsion of insurgents and security being handed over to Afghan Forces. There is already a shift in Military thinking from pursuing an anti insurgency policy, which is very labour intensive, to a more focussed anti terrorist operation. Well, I've provided some of my evidence. Perhaps you can show me some of yours? Who has provided your "well-documented" evidence? How do you define "normality" etc.? I mean, according to guys like Burke attitudes such as the Taliban's are not that far from normality anyhow.

Re: Afghanistan: Does this undo all the work done? : Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:36 pm  

Mugwump wrote: Davis isn't the first officer to come to this conclusion. There are several other well-researched reports if you care to look. I'm not sure what relevance discussions with his pastor have. Maybe you could tell me? I could speculate that perhaps he had some sort of epiphany, which was reinforced by his subsequent viewing of his favourite movie, which then provided the impetus for his one man campaign. The only two people who really know are Davis and his Pastor . Mugwump wrote: And, seriously, what do you expect the military's response to be? There are an awful lot of careers at stake here - not to mention billion dollar arms deals, industry jobs, geopolitical ambitions etc. I excpected the response to be exactly as I've previously stated, they'd put the best spin on it. Mugwump wrote: There were ample well-researched reports writing the Vietnam campaign off as early as the introduction of ground troops. How many saw the light of day until Daniel Ellsberg blew the lid off the deception? Even then they weren't taken seriously. Hell, I could go back to the Battle of Jutland where Jellicoe laughed off criticism of his handling of the Grand Fleet and even went so far as to suppress the report which proved why half-a-dozen of his dreadnoughts blew up with nary a shot being fired in anger. Secrecy and the military go hand in hand. Your last sentence raised a smile. It is the nature of the beast. In any case, isn't Truth the first casualty of War? Personally, I'm a tad disappointed you didn't offer up an explanation for the missing 9th Legion.... Mugwump wrote: Look, it really comes down to who you think is more likely to understand what conditions are like on the ground in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the New York Times (commonly referred to as American Officials Say - even by other journalists!), five star generals (many of whom have either limited or no combat experience), the TV or the combat veteran with complete access asked to submit a full appraisal of the entire conflict? Surely a middle-ranking officer is the man most likely to see the entire picture? If that middle ranking Officer could be shown to have an extensive combat background, backed up with a good military record throughout his career, then I would tend to agree with you. However, I'm still not fully convinced about Davis. One item in particular shows his lack of front line experience. He complains about the Taliban kidnapping and killing an Afghan Police Officer, 500 yards away from their compound, and witters on about the American influence not even extending as far as you can see. Any soldier that has been in combat over there knows that the insurgents are very good at setting their ambushes, and live IEDS have been found placed within 10 yards of Patrol Bases. Here's a more ROBUST REBUTTAL Mugwump wrote: And I should make the point that Davis is by no means a radical lefty. He's as much a part of the establishment as anyone else even if he does have disagreements. TBH, I don't think he goes far enough. Well, I've provided some of my evidence. Perhaps you can show me some of yours? Who has provided your "well-documented" evidence? How do you define "normality" etc.? I mean, according to guys like Burke attitudes such as the Taliban's are not that far from normality anyhow. As I recall Mugwump, you were provided with the facts which showed your claims, re Afghan civilian casualties, were simply a product of your own fertile imagination! Your subsequent sidestep to attempt to include Iraq was duly noted. I refuse to believe that you have never watched a documentary,or read an informed newspaper column detailing the ongoing improvements in Afghanistan over the last few years. If you can hold on for another 3 weeks, our Nick can give you an up to date resume, complete with photographs. I could link you to various MOD blogs/videos, but I suspect they're not your cup of tea. Or point you in the direction of official UN stats that show the staggering number of refugees, encouraged by the improving situation, returning from Pakistan back to their homeland. I could,.....but as penance for your left wing rhetoric, I think you should do your own googling. Something along the lines of "Improvements in Afghanistan since 2001" should suffice. I'd also have a small dish of salt to hand.....

Mugwump wrote: Davis isn't the first officer to come to this conclusion. There are several other well-researched reports if you care to look. I'm not sure what relevance discussions with his pastor have. Maybe you could tell me? I could speculate that perhaps he had some sort of epiphany, which was reinforced by his subsequent viewing of his favourite movie, which then provided the impetus for his one man campaign. The only two people who really know are Davis and his Pastor . Mugwump wrote: And, seriously, what do you expect the military's response to be? There are an awful lot of careers at stake here - not to mention billion dollar arms deals, industry jobs, geopolitical ambitions etc. I excpected the response to be exactly as I've previously stated, they'd put the best spin on it. Mugwump wrote: There were ample well-researched reports writing the Vietnam campaign off as early as the introduction of ground troops. How many saw the light of day until Daniel Ellsberg blew the lid off the deception? Even then they weren't taken seriously. Hell, I could go back to the Battle of Jutland where Jellicoe laughed off criticism of his handling of the Grand Fleet and even went so far as to suppress the report which proved why half-a-dozen of his dreadnoughts blew up with nary a shot being fired in anger. Secrecy and the military go hand in hand. Your last sentence raised a smile. It is the nature of the beast. In any case, isn't Truth the first casualty of War? Personally, I'm a tad disappointed you didn't offer up an explanation for the missing 9th Legion.... Mugwump wrote: Look, it really comes down to who you think is more likely to understand what conditions are like on the ground in Afghanistan. Newspapers such as the New York Times (commonly referred to as American Officials Say - even by other journalists!), five star generals (many of whom have either limited or no combat experience), the TV or the combat veteran with complete access asked to submit a full appraisal of the entire conflict? Surely a middle-ranking officer is the man most likely to see the entire picture? If that middle ranking Officer could be shown to have an extensive combat background, backed up with a good military record throughout his career, then I would tend to agree with you. However, I'm still not fully convinced about Davis. One item in particular shows his lack of front line experience. He complains about the Taliban kidnapping and killing an Afghan Police Officer, 500 yards away from their compound, and witters on about the American influence not even extending as far as you can see. Any soldier that has been in combat over there knows that the insurgents are very good at setting their ambushes, and live IEDS have been found placed within 10 yards of Patrol Bases. Here's a more ROBUST REBUTTAL Mugwump wrote: And I should make the point that Davis is by no means a radical lefty. He's as much a part of the establishment as anyone else even if he does have disagreements. TBH, I don't think he goes far enough. Well, I've provided some of my evidence. Perhaps you can show me some of yours? Who has provided your "well-documented" evidence? How do you define "normality" etc.? I mean, according to guys like Burke attitudes such as the Taliban's are not that far from normality anyhow. As I recall Mugwump, you were provided with the facts which showed your claims, re Afghan civilian casualties, were simply a product of your own fertile imagination! Your subsequent sidestep to attempt to include Iraq was duly noted. I refuse to believe that you have never watched a documentary,or read an informed newspaper column detailing the ongoing improvements in Afghanistan over the last few years. If you can hold on for another 3 weeks, our Nick can give you an up to date resume, complete with photographs. I could link you to various MOD blogs/videos, but I suspect they're not your cup of tea. Or point you in the direction of official UN stats that show the staggering number of refugees, encouraged by the improving situation, returning from Pakistan back to their homeland. I could,.....but as penance for your left wing rhetoric, I think you should do your own googling. Something along the lines of "Improvements in Afghanistan since 2001" should suffice. I'd also have a small dish of salt to hand.....