"Nation Building" is for Chumps

This is pretty much exactly what my son has been telling me. Our people being killed with their hands tied by rules of engagement written by our so called "Allie" who's already publicly said he'd side with the Paks in a war against us.

Afghanistan should never have been anything more than a hunting ground for spec ops. To turn it into a nation building exercise backed by a conventional occupation deliberately under manned is nothing short of politically motivated murder. COIN is a complete and utter failure as any thinking person knows it would be. And the media has completely stopped covering it to protect he who said that this was the "just war".

Fall back to the airbases, pull everyone out now and cover the whole "country" with kudzu, fire-ants and feral hogs.

http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

What a waste of lives, money and time. Why didn't we bomb Saudi Arabia? That's where the 9-11 hijackers came from. We bombed Afghanistan because they were isolated, the war would be extended, and there is big money to be made fighting a war in Afghanistan. I'm embarrassed for my country.

What a waste of lives, money and time. Why didn't we bomb Saudi Arabia? That's where the 9-11 hijackers came from. We bombed Afghanistan because they were isolated, the war would be extended, and there is big money to be made fighting a war in Afghanistan. I'm embarrassed for my country. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh come off it, we bombed Afghanistan because that's where the bad guys actually were at the time, not where they came from.

As for bombing SA, while turning Mecca and Medina into globs of glowing glass would actually be in the long term interests of the human race, I don't think most would approve of wrecking the worlds economy just to punish those who tried to damage the world's economy.

There is a big difference between pursuing and killing our enemies and "nation building". We desperately need to learn that the proper reward for attacking or supporting those who attack us is not shiny new schools.

There is a big difference between pursuing and killing our enemies and "nation building". We desperately need to learn that the proper reward for attacking or supporting those who attack us is not shiny new schools. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Peter Sellers in "The Mouse That Roared."

How many "bad guys" did we kill in Afghanistan? How many Afghanis were involved in 9-11? What did Afghanistan do to provoke our attack? What threat to American security did Afghanistan present? How well are we doing in eliminating that threat? How much goodwill are we building in that region of the world? How has bombing innocent men, women and children improved our relationship with Afghanistan? Where is the Congressional Declaration of War to authorize our involvement in Afghanistan? How many American lives are worth our engagement with Afghanistan? How much taxpayer money? How will we know when we win? And finally, why the fuck do think that bombing a backwards third world country improves our security or image?

Originally Posted by WTF

I second that handclap.

One hell of a lot, and more every day as a matter of fact. The Taliban harbored the Al Quieda planners of the attack and were given ample opportunity to turn them over. There were less than 400 Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor, so what is your point?

Bombing innocent men, women, and children my ass, prove it windbag. My son and his unit had to climb a 1K high mountain, under fire before being allowed to call air in on a force 3X their size attacking them so they could "prove" that there were no buildings around (despite satellite photos) out of fear of hurting civilians.

My point is precisely that our intent SHOULD NOT BE to "improve relationships" or build "good will" or "image". World powers don't survive because other nations love them, or like them, or have good will toward them, like it or not they survive because other nations fear them.

I'm completely in favor of obtaining declarations of war, Paul had the best ideas with his proposed letters of marque in fact.

Finally, why the fuck do you think that bombing a wealthy trading partner improves our security?

I didn't advocate bombing Saudi Arabia. I don't advocate bombing any other country unless there is a clear threat to our security and a Declaration of War is passed by Congress.

I brought up Saudi Arabia because they were clearly more involved in the attacks than Afghanistan, but they are a wealthy trading partner, so of course we did not bomb them. We will bomb backward little countries, but countries that might be able to strike back, we will let them get away with anything.

This war is bullshit. I admire your son for his service, no question about that. But I can question the wisdom of his CIC, and I will.

But tell me, how will we know when we win? What about my other questions? How many innocent children have to die before it becomes a problem? How many Americans have to die before we start to rethink our policy?

The fact is, there is no definition of victory, and never has been. We will continue to bomb them until they like us. How's that working out?

We got the debate on killing the 9-11 perps and going into Afghanistan and Iraq; we didn't get the debate on nation building.

Kill/destroy em first. then decide to build or not !

But the military command is a bunch of weak pussies who want bigger budgets from their political masters and dance their tune of political correctness.

I didn't advocate bombing Saudi Arabia. I don't advocate bombing any other country unless there is a clear threat to our security and a Declaration of War is passed by Congress.

I brought up Saudi Arabia because they were clearly more involved in the attacks than Afghanistan, but they are a wealthy trading partner, so of course we did not bomb them. We will bomb backward little countries, but countries that might be able to strike back, we will let them get away with anything.

This war is bullshit. I admire your son for his service, no question about that. But I can question the wisdom of his CIC, and I will.

But tell me, how will we know when we win? What about my other questions? How many innocent children have to die before it becomes a problem? How many Americans have to die before we start to rethink our policy?

The fact is, there is no definition of victory, and never has been. We will continue to bomb them until they like us. How's that working out? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You can't kill an idea, however, if you kill enough of the people who think it's a good idea so it's forgotten, that's close enough, and that's the only definition of victory that matters. Hence, victory is not and has never been the goal.

If you ask me what it takes to obtain victory I'll tell you it means killing tens if not hundreds of millions, until a particular set of ideas is abandoned by the survivors.

Now, tell me, since victory is not obtainable what do you propose we do the next time a bunch of tenth century reprobates attack us? You've knocked down what we've done, so let's hear what we should have done.

But the military command is a bunch of weak pussies who want bigger budgets from their political masters and dance their tune of political correctness. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (BTW, his ROE sucked)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (BTW, his ROE sucked) Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But, at least he asked for what he thought was enough troops to secure both the south and the east at the same time, instead of the "whack a mole" I'll only give you enough to do half at a time response he got from the POSITOO.

As for Petraeus, the chief proponent of of COIN (an absurd policy IMHO) instead of resigning when the "limp surge" was to end prematurely took the offer at CIA, I think he fits the article I referred to to a "T".

If you are going to war, make war. If you aren't going to fuck, don't stick it in. The POSITOO made a big deal in the campaign about how this was "The right war to fight". McChrystal asked for what he thought was enough people to do it (although probably still not enough), then several months later the POSITOO gives him something like 60% of what he asked for.

Eighty percent of the value gained in Afghanistan (getting the Taliban out of control of the government) was accomplished by spec ops targeting and killing the enemy, not by conventional forces sent to be policemen and "nation builders". Both American political regimes involved made demands of the military that were just flat out stupid, not only unachievable, but unimportant to our strategic interests.

I know I'm no expert, not a veteran etc., and maybe a little emotionally invested in this, but there is no way we should have let a POS like Karzi get away with the shit he's done and said to us and about us.

One should never start a war without a definition of victory. That is ridiculous. Secondly, the same clowns who swore there were WMDs in Iraq said the attackers were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a nothing country before we got there, and will be a nothing country after we leave. It will always be a hideout for thieves, murderers and their ilk. It won't change and we are wasting our time.

In the meantime, what has happened on the home front? In the name of "protecting" us, we have lost nearly all our liberty. The government watches everything we do, and can now arrest us and detain us indefinitely without due process. We have to be groped by strangers to get on an airplane, and they are expanding that to other forms of transportation.

So who is winning the "War on Terror"? I think they have, because we are becoming much more like them than they are us.

What should we do next time? If we had a reasonable foreign policy, there wouldn't be a next time. But if there is, let's not let the defense industry tell us what to do. And let's go after the real perps, not a bunch of turban wearing brown guys. Who happen to look like terrorists.

I bet every one of you idiots supported invading Afghanistan and Iraq at the time it happened and for years afterward. Then, a decade after the fact, when even a retard has recognized that it's a shit sandwich and always has been, you're suddenly enlightened.

Regarding combat effectiveness, a lot of the "nation building" that has been going on has allowed our SOCOM operators to do the work they've done. All well and good to beat your chest and talk about kicking everybody's ass in sight but if your real agenda is to search out and kill the bad guys who look exactly like the rest of the general population, you've got to have intel...and to get intel, you've got to have at least a part of the local population on your side. And you don't get the local population on your side by shooting and bombing them indiscriminately, by destroying their crops and their homes and what little infrastructure that exists. You get them on your side by giving them shit and by not killing them and their family members.

We should have left Afghanistan no later than 12 mos. after the first bomb dropped. We never should have invaded Iraq.