The Taliban is winning

[wjh2657]

Basically he is saying that if we get the h*** out of his country he will quit fighting us. We already knew that. He is giving the "Bring them home" faction of the U.S. ammunition for a plea to quit the war. He is giving them a "withdrawal with honor" card to play.

It is a smart political move. As I said above, these guys are pros and have been at this for a long time. The leaders of the Taliban are extremely clever and experienced at playing the politics game. These are not "dumb ragheads." The leadership is well educated and most of the religious leaders also have field experience. They are also playing on their home court.

We underestimated the abilities of Ho and Giap in 1963-1975 and we paid dearly for it. I hope we don't ake the same mistake again. Make no mistake. This is again, a political war not a military war. We can win all the battles on the ground and lose at the bargaining table, if we even get that far.

This isn't "Liberal Propoganda", this is experience. I l have lived through this before.

"Been there. Done that. Got the ball cap and the T-shirt."

Edited August 17, 2009 by wjh2657

[Daniel]

Basically he is saying that if we get the h*** out of his country he will quit fighting us. We already knew that. He is giving the "Bring them home" faction of the U.S. ammunition for a plea to quit the war. He is giving them a "withdrawal with honor" card to play.

It is a smart political move. As I said above, these guys are pros and have been at this for a long time. The leaders of the Taliban are extremely clever and experienced at playing the politics game. These are not "dumb ragheads." The leadership is well educated and most of the religious leaders also have field experience. They are also playing on their home court.

We underestimated the abilities of Ho and Giap in 1963-1975 and we paid dearly for it. I hope we don't ake the same mistake again. Make no mistake. This is again, a political war not a military war. We can win all the battles on the ground and lose at the bargaining table, if we even get that far.

This isn't "Liberal Propoganda", this is experience. I l have lived through this before.

"Been there. Done that. Got the ball cap and the T-shirt."

To the first bolded comment, I heard the same thing from most Iraqis after the first 3 months of the war. They thanked us for what we had done for them and politely requested we return home. Obviously that did not happen.

To the second bold statement.

Justme keeps saying that we need to be allowed to fight a war how its meant to be fought etc. This war and the war in Iraq are not conventional wars. This isnt a standing army we have been facing. How many battles have we lost in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan? (You could also ask the question "How many battles did we lose in Vietnam?") Would you say we have lost in Iraq? I would disagree. I also do not see a loss in Afghanistan. Vietnam was a different war in that we were fighting insurgents and a conventional force. The common Afghani does not hate America. They just want to live their lives like anyone else. If we can create a climate where they are not being threatened by the Taliban into fighting against us or we are driving people into fighting us by killing their friends, neighbors, and families unintentionally or for no reason we will be making real progress. My unit's job is to help create that climate. To change the local populace attitudes and minds. It can happen. The ground commanders have requested more troops and even more will be incoming. Give them the time to work.

[E4 No More]

I've changed my feelings about Afghanistan since BHO got elected. I know what our soldiers, marines and their families have been through in Iraq. I had a son-in-law wounded in Iraq and have another one there now.

Obama stated recently that his objective in Afghanistan isn't necessarily 'victory'.

In that case, I'm in favor of pulling out immediately and bringing our troops home. There'll be another battle somewhere, sometime, and maybe our President will try to win the next one.

I think that you meant Marines.

[clipslinger]

Afganistan is full of caves and holes that go very deep into the earth. The Taliban has the support of a lot of afgani's because of religous ferver. Bin Laden has the peoples support because he built a lot of schools and hospitals. the border to pakistan is wide open ( kinda like cambodia and laos in southeast asia). They are not an organised military and cannot be fought that way. Swing your hand as hard as you can at a swarm of gnats. How many did you kill? The Soviets did teach us that conventional warfare will not work there. Whats the answer? Ive always thought that the way to defeat the muslim extremist is to destroy them from within. Look how our country is divided and weakened by the two party system. If bin laden is a good muslim to them we should offer a better muslim. a safer muslim. Maybe throw in some free goats, a school or two? Get them focused on infighting, power struggles, etc.

[poak]

For those who would like a first hand boots to the ground account of the relationship between Afghans and the Taliban, pick up Lone Survivor. It's a solid read.

[E4 No More]

Afganistan is full of caves and holes that go very deep into the earth. The Taliban has the support of a lot of afgani's because of religous ferver. Bin Laden has the peoples support because he built a lot of schools and hospitals. the border to pakistan is wide open ( kinda like cambodia and laos in southeast asia). They are not an organised military and cannot be fought that way. Swing your hand as hard as you can at a swarm of gnats. How many did you kill? The Soviets did teach us that conventional warfare will not work there. Whats the answer? Ive always thought that the way to defeat the muslim extremist is to destroy them from within. Look how our country is divided and weakened by the two party system. If bin laden is a good muslim to them we should offer a better muslim. a safer muslim. Maybe throw in some free goats, a school or two? Get them focused on infighting, power struggles, etc.

Personally, I think you fight them by going after their families. It's one thing to want to die for 70 virgins, but it's another to know mom, dad, brother, sister, etc get left with the short straw.

But the pansies in this country won't do it, so it's all academic.

[Daniel]

You create more Mujahideen by killing innocent people. You validate their cause.

[E4 No More]

You create more Mujahideen by killing innocent people. You validate their cause.

Not when you kill them all and let God sort them out.

[DavidCBaker]

Not when you kill them all and let God sort them out.

Sort of like the justification for the 9/11 attacks?

[Guest jwb68]

For those who would like a first hand boots to the ground account of the relationship between Afghans and the Taliban, pick up Lone Survivor. It's a solid read.

It is a great read but I would be careful in thinking that it is accurate as to the current situation. The book was published 2 years ago about incidents that happened in 2005. The Taliban that is there now is not the same Taliban that was there when we first engaged.

[E4 No More]

I think it's against human nature to attack someone who you know full well will not only annihilate you, but also your family and friends.

I have an acquaintance from Palestine who says that most of those people doing such things are doing so on the promise that their families will be provided for. They live in crappy conditions with nothing but depression. They see it as a way out while making sure those that they left behind are much better off.

[Guest jwb68]

Personally, I think you fight them by going after their families. It's one thing to want to die for 70 virgins, but it's another to know mom, dad, brother, sister, etc get left with the short straw.

But the pansies in this country won't do it, so it's all academic.

You do fight them by going after their families. You eduacte their women and children, set up a sytem by which the things you take for granted (clean water, basic health care, credit, etc) are readily available, help them find a government that is not made up of narco-thieves and provide some level of security until they can build a modern army to defend themselves. It takes awhile. Especially when the modern army you are trying to create will be staffed (at first) by men who basically cant read. The afghans have been living on other people's money for a long time. Expecting them to do any different in 8 years is unrealistic.

[Guest Muttling]

On recent events concerning Russia's military....

They're firing more than half of their senior officer corps. 200,000 of them. This is part of the military reform effort started by Putin following their crappy performance in Georgia.

Russia Firing 200k Military Officers

[poak]

It is a great read but I would be careful in thinking that it is accurate as to the current situation. The book was published 2 years ago about incidents that happened in 2005. The Taliban that is there now is not the same Taliban that was there when we first engaged.

I'll readily admit I'm no expert on the Taliban, but I would venture to say that a large majority of their younger recruits are drawn in not by fierce allegiance to jihad, but by a lack of options (lousy wages and long hours scraping poppies for opium operations or life eating dirt sandwiches in refuge camps), as illustrated in the book. I doubt that has changed, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Guest jwb68]

I'll readily admit I'm no expert on the Taliban, but I would venture to say that a large majority of their younger recruits are drawn in not by fierce allegiance to jihad, but by a lack of options (lousy wages and long hours scraping poppies for opium operations or life eating dirt sandwiches in refuge camps), as illustrated in the book. I doubt that has changed, but maybe I'm wrong.

I am no expert either. I thought you were refering to another issue. You are right though jihad is as much an economic thing as anything.

[enfield]

I think that you meant Marines.

Nope, I spelled it as I intended to. Semper Fi!

[E4 No More]

Nope, I spelled it as I intended to. Semper Fi!

You used it as a proper noun - which is supposed to be capitalized.

[wjh2657]

Looky here:

marine= adjective applying to slimy and squigly things that live in salt water or anything to do with salt water bodies.

Marine= Carefully selected and highly trained professional fighter, chosen by GOD to guard his property.

SEMPER FI!

[wjh2657]

Personally, I think you fight them by going after their families. It's one thing to want to die for 70 virgins, but it's another to know mom, dad, brother, sister, etc get left with the short straw.

But the pansies in this country won't do it, so it's all academic.

The "pansies" in this country have nothing to do with it. In 1945-47 the Allied Military decided to make the rules (retroactive) that all soldiers were supposed to fight under. It was called the Nuremburg Trials. We made the rules,now we have to live with them.

We created the label of war crimes and now it applies to us too.

[E4 No More]

The "pansies" in this country have nothing to do with it. In 1945-47 the Allied Military decided to make the rules (retroactive) that all soldiers were supposed to fight under. It was called the Nuremburg Trials. We made the rules,now we have to live with them.

We created the label of war crimes and now it applies to us too.

I wasn't commenting on how we got them; just that we have them. Never in history has a country had the power that we do and do not exercise said power. War is an uncivilized act, and I do not see the sense in trying to civilize it...period.

[wjh2657]

I wasn't commenting on how we got them; just that we have them. Never in history has a country had the power that we do and do not exercise said power. War is an uncivilized act, and I do not see the sense in trying to civilize it...period.

It's not up to us, we made the rules and now we live by them. We sat down at the end of WWI and later WWII and decided to make a game out of war, with rules and penalty boxes.

As far as might makes right, it's been tried before , that is why we had WWII, to make sure it didn't happen again. It always seems that it should be different rules for our side, which works as long as you don't lose!

You are not talking to a bleeding heart liberal here either. I served three tours in Viet Nam and I am a Conservative, but I am not a Militarist nor "my country can do anything to anybody because we have the bigger bomb" person either. Whether we like the rules or not, we executed people for not following those rules that we made. Now you want to throw them out because they don't guve you what you want. It just doesn't work that way.

Edited August 18, 2009 by wjh2657

[E4 No More]

It's not up to us, we made the rules and now we live by them. We sat down at the end of WWI and later WWII and decided to make a game out of war, with rules and penalty boxes.

As far as might makes right, it's been tried before , that is why we had WWII, to make sure it didn't happen again. It always seems that it should be different rules for our side, which works as long as you don't lose!

You are not talking to a bleeding heart liberal here either. I served three tours in Viet Nam and I am a Conservative, but I am not a Militarist nor "my country can do anything to anybody because we have the bigger bomb" person either. Whether we like the rules or not, we executed people for not following those rules that we made. Now you want to throw them out because they don't guve you what you want. It just doesn't work that way.

Well thanks for the "Life Lesson" but I didn't make anything. I also didn't see Russians being tried for war crimes after they did things like rigging dolls with explosives for the children in Afghanistan during the 80's. Nor were the Chinese, North Koreans, or North Vietnamese held accountable for their crimes in respective wars. Are you saying that it's a "good-guy/bad-guy thing? Do not agreements bind both parties? Then you have the ones who didn't sign, but we still have to obey the rules when there's no contract to begin with?

I do see my brother Marines and our soldiers coming back needlessly maimed or worse because they are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs just like you were forced to do so in Vietnam. I get pissed when I see some whinning sheep tell our boys that they can't shoot at the guy shooting at him because his assailant is standing next to, (or hiding behind), a civilian.

I'll put it to you this way from an example taken directly from Lebanon. If my neighbor had a yard full of rockets that I know full well are going to be shot at someone else who will in turn shoot back, it is my responsibility to either move my family or move my neighbor. If I do neither, then the responsibility for the death of myself and my family lies solely upon me unless I am forced at gunpoint to remain in place. It would not make a difference to me whether the guy shooting back is named Mohammad, Nikkita, or Ling.

[wjh2657]

"Are you saying that it's a "good-guy/bad-guy thing? Do not agreements bind both parties? Then you have the ones who didn't sign, but *we* still have to obey the rules when there's no contract to begin with?"

Exact point. The Nuremburg Trials and rulings were not part of a treaty, they were unilateral decisions by our side as to how everybody was to behave or stand trial as war criminals. If the other side loses, we execute them for violating the rules. I didn't make anything either, but for 30 years as a Marine (you state that you also served as a Marine) "my fellow Marines" and that was the rules we were told to live by.Civilians got into the line of fire in RVN, but we didn't actively seek them out as targets, as you suggest in your original post. I wasn't aware that the Corps had gone over to randomly killing civilians, maybe some currently serving Marines can enlighten the old Master Gunny on this.

[E4 No More]

"Are you saying that it's a "good-guy/bad-guy thing? Do not agreements bind both parties? Then you have the ones who didn't sign, but *we* still have to obey the rules when there's no contract to begin with?"

Exact point. The Nuremburg Trials and rulings were not part of a treaty, they were unilateral decisions by our side as to how everybody was to behave or stand trial as war criminals. If the other side loses, we execute them for violating the rules. I didn't make anything either, but for 30 years as a Marine (you state that you also served as a Marine) "my fellow Marines" and that was the rules we were told to live by.Civilians got into the line of fire in RVN, but we didn't actively seek them out as targets, as you suggest in your original post. I wasn't aware that the Corps had gone over to randomly killing civilians, maybe some currently serving Marines can enlighten the old Master Gunny on this.

Were we not fighting uniformed armies when that agreement was made, or were we fighting Taliban/Jihadists back then?

If you don't want to be in a combat zone then move. I believe the time-honored term for them would be "Refugees".

EDIT: Let me clarify. There are large pockets of Taliban fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan. I couldn't care less if they used tactical nuclear weapons in the form of Neutron Bombs to eliminate them.

Edited August 18, 2009 by SWJewellTN

[Guest Muttling]

Were we not fighting uniformed armies when that agreement was made, or were we fighting Taliban/Jihadists back then?

This is something that gets me. It is my understanding that you must clearly identify yourself as a combatant for Geneva Conventions to apply, otherwise you are designated a spy and the conventions don't apply. Additionally, none of our current enemies are signatories to the conventions and, yet again, they don't apply.

The Conventions have morphed from a good set of early 1900's rules to a set of human rights that don't really fit into the current day setting.

I think the whole concept needs a good scrubbing and updating for operations against the non-traditional enemy. The quagmire at Guantanimo is a perfect example of why we need a scrubbing.

Are they POWs? Are they enemy spies? Are they criminals? Each category has a different set of laws that applies and different requirements for us to meet, but none of these categories really make sense for our current day enemy.

The buzzword used is enemy combatant, but no one has really said what that means or what set of laws apply. Is it the UCMJ? Is it the Conventions? Is it something else?

We need to be thinking ahead and proactive with how we handle these people instead of reactive.