PDA

View Full Version : Why we can't win in Afganistan


cpd109
June 27, 2010, 09:21
Our politicians don't want us to.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=7288.5847.0.0

Towards the end of this article, they talk about the IED planted next to a Taliban fighting position that troops wanted to level, but couldn't becaseu they were prohibited to do so.

Why don't our troops fight to win? They can't. The administration wants to fight a war using liberal common sense (Bush and Barry). You know, not hurt anyone, don't destroy anything, go patrol where we are pretty sure the enemy isn't. Avoid conflict. Play nice with others.

What we need to do is either withdraw or fight to win. This has become a war of attrition and we will ultimatley lose like we did in VN, not due to a lack of military strength, but the political will to use it.

If I were running the war, we'd be using a lot of pig blood and parts to get our point across. (We have to fight on a level the enemy understands, and right now, we are seen by them as a bunch of panty wadded wimps.) And larger caliber weapons that removes the ABILITY to continue the fight rather than merely wound so they are a injured but not out of the fight.

Note- we went to the 22 rifle in 1963 and haven't really won anything since then. Panama, Grenada, I can't think of anything else. Coincidence or trend?

Rant off.

Munster30
June 27, 2010, 09:49
It's unclear whether the present and very strict ROE were put in place strictly by McCrystal, or whether he was following an order from higher up.
If the new General lifts them we'll know.

Bawana jim
June 27, 2010, 09:54
When war is taken over by politicions and bureaucrats rather than the soldiers that fight it we end up with malaise and corruption. All our wars since WWII have been lost by our politicions.

jim

4markk
June 27, 2010, 11:25
Who says we are losing??? The New York Times ???? The Rolling Stoned??? Yeah we know they are agenda free military science geniuses.

The Taliban is hemorrhaging badly. They are taking body blow after body blow. Had GEN McChrystal stayed they would have imploded within 8-10 months. Hopefully the WH does not tie GEN Petreaus' hands.

What do I base this on??? First hand knowledge, SITREPS, etc ....

No one finds it suspicious we only hear the one or two same stories of GI's complaining???? There are 25-30 operations a day, 7 days a week and there are only 2 complaints???? In an hour I could find 50 GI's that would complain about the color of the uniform to the color of your hair.

If you like to see REAL images of the war and REAL stories to filter the agenda driven propaganda, go to the official news site. That's what the reporters do. See it first hand, then decide.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/index.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/ISAFMEDIA

juanni
June 27, 2010, 12:50
Originally posted by 308bolt

What exactly are we trying to "win" in Afghanistan.

At this point, 9 years it, should be obvious that we aren't going to win anything.

But by still fighting on, we can continue to ignore the foolish decision to occupy Afghanistan, the MIC can keep the taxpayer cash coming in, the Taliban can keep collect their toll charges and the defict based stimulus economy can keep growing.

Win, Win for everybody that matters. :whiskey:



Course it you are a taxpayer, a US citizen that will be victim of the inevitable retalliation, an Afghan or sent home in a bodybag or with a headfull of IED transformed mush you don't win. :uhoh:



...............juanni

martin35
June 27, 2010, 13:05
What exactly are we trying to "win" in Afghanistan.
That has not been defined to Americans if we have to ask, and only the ignorant would ask, I among them.
America has not lost a military battle of any consequence since early WWII.
We are employing our military in nation building with political supervision, methods and objectives a strategy as yet to be proved, in my opinion those process cannot be started until unquestionable control can be exercised, that it appears is not the proven case to many here and across America and our foe in their sanctuaries.
Here in America we have enclaves of lawess activity that have existed for decades, we got used to it, law enforcement ignores it with rules of engagement, maybe we can do the same for Afghanistan.

cpd109
June 27, 2010, 13:21
Originally posted by 4markk
Who says we are losing??? The New York Times ???? The Rolling Stoned??? Yeah we know they are agenda free military science geniuses.

The Taliban is hemorrhaging badly. They are taking body blow after body blow. Had GEN McChrystal stayed they would have imploded within 8-10 months. Hopefully the WH does not tie GEN Petreaus' hands.

What do I base this on??? First hand knowledge, SITREPS, etc ....

No one finds it suspicious we only hear the one or two same stories of GI's complaining???? There are 25-30 operations a day, 7 days a week and there are only 2 complaints???? In an hour I could find 50 GI's that would complain about the color of the uniform to the color of your hair.

If you like to see REAL images of the war and REAL stories to filter the agenda driven propaganda, go to the official news site. That's what the reporters do. See it first hand, then decide.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/index.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/ISAFMEDIA

I don't know what I'm basing my comments on, Mark. Maybe just the fact we are STILL there after 9 years. WWII took 3 1/2 years from the time we entered it. Again, it's not that we can't win the war, it's that our military is prohibited from taking the actions we need to take to get it finished.

You have mentioned a lot of actions. Do they net any results, or are the troops kept from doing what needs to be done?

In reviewing this, I think the biggest difference between Afghanstan and WWII is that we, as a nation, were scared the Axis would actually win the war. Here, not so much. That same theme runs through all the conflicts. We were exerting force and not trying to save our lives. Also, even in WWII, there were a lot of restrictions on the conduct of the war, but not as many as we have in this one.

Take care.

martin35
June 27, 2010, 13:26
even in WWII, there were a lot of restrictions on the conduct of the war, but not as many as we have in this one.
Tell that to the Japs,,, who were more numerous and the equal of any terrorist of today.

martin35
June 27, 2010, 13:33
I remember being a part of a discriminating exclusionary society, how did I get talked out of that,,, it worked.

juanni
June 27, 2010, 14:03
Originally posted by cpd109


In reviewing this, I think the biggest difference between Afghanstan and WWII is that we, as a nation, were scared the Axis would actually win the war. Here, not so much. That same theme runs through all the conflicts. We were exerting force and not trying to save our lives. Also, even in WWII, there were a lot of restrictions on the conduct of the war, but not as many as we have in this one.



I disagree.
The big differences the Axis were high functioning, complex, industrialized countries and societies with leadership, national policies and actions that were supported by the majority of their citizens.
An enemy and a country with that structure can be defeated.


Contrast that with Afghanistan, totally dysfunctional, devoid of industry, agrarian getting by existence, leadership that really had marginal support from the citizens making internationally insignificant decisions, that the average Afghan who can't read who knew zero about AQ or anything else.

The Taliban provided a small measure of internal stability and Afghanistan was simply a layover for AQ.
So how do you defeat what doesn't exist?


...............juanni

homelandprotector
June 27, 2010, 15:09
Originally posted by martin35
even in WWII, there were a lot of restrictions on the conduct of the war, but not as many as we have in this one.
Tell that to the Japs,,, who were more numerous and the equal of any terrorist of today. If we declared total war on the radical Muzlims like we did with the Japs they would be extinct in about 1 week. Our leaders don't have the balls to do it and never will.

The Twin tower attack was worse then Pearl Harbor, more people died.

I wish I was in charge. :mad:

D P Six
June 27, 2010, 15:39
The Soviets did not win in Afganistan because of external forces beyond their control intervened , the US. Today the US's efforts to bring the Afgan non-nation state to it's knees are at best in a holding pattern. As with the Soviets, their are interests that do not want to see a US victory. As history has shown, keep the US in a military ho;ding pattern long enough and we will declare 'Peace With Honor' and go home. Considering the social and economic state of the 'Homeland', our military retrenchment probably isn't that far off.

101ABN327
June 27, 2010, 16:04
Originally posted by Munster30
It's unclear whether the present and very strict ROE were put in place strictly by McCrystal, or whether he was following an order from higher up.
If the new General lifts them we'll know.

Are you kidding? This, from the Administration who refuses to call out enemy terrorists and changed the "War on Terrorism" to "Global Contingency Operation"! The ROE has Obama's fingerprints all over it! McCrystal just rubber stamped them like the good liberal General he was...

martin35
June 29, 2010, 16:00
Petraeus has Obama's nut's in a vise and he likely asked for and got concessions to work in his own way with minimal input from politicians.
All the prominent hate Petraeus web sites are mysteriously shut down,,, he's their unwanted but necessary purgative.

RG Coburn
June 29, 2010, 22:44
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/7477619/graft-fears-as-massive-cash-sums-fly-out-of-kabul-wsj/


Hmm..seems like some people make a decent living from this war.

EricCartmanR1
June 29, 2010, 23:02
I am happy to see the Great Viet Cong Walter Cronkite Ghost is active and doing well.