Afghanistan- why are we still at it ?

[STURM]

Political leadership should always be jittery regardless of what country they lead or why and how they lead it. This should be normal and of no special concern.

Well it really depends on the countey in pacticular, its recent hostory and the threats it faces. Certain countries obviously would have a more pressing reason to be ''jittery'' than others. The actions of individual countries are also dependent on other countries in which she might have conflicting interests with.

Hence what is the justification of having them?

What was the justification of making them in the first place, beyond shortening the war with Japan and preventing further loss of lives?

 

[My2Cents]

What was the justification of making them in the first place, beyond shortening the war with Japan and preventing further loss of lives?

The justification for building the 1st nuclear weapons was that Germany and Japan were also trying to make them. A lot of people were hoping that it would prove impossible. Evidence gathered after the war showed that the Germans had taken the wrong track and, as a result, were several years behind the Allies at the end of the war. Japan was on the right track but did not give it any priority, and would not have had the resource base to enrich the necessary uranium in time. Both missed the potential for a plutonium based bomb.

As for using nuclear weapons against Japan, projections were for 1 million to 4 million Allied casualties from the invasion of Japan proper, and 10 million to near extermination for the Japanese if they remained as fanatical as they had to that date. Allied planners had a duty to explore all possible alternatives for avoiding that, and it was difficult to justify not using the nuclear weapons at that time. The decision to deploy chemical weapons as part of the invasion plan had already been made.

The impact of the nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the Japanese a politically acceptable excuse to surrender. Yes, there are some scholars who claim that the Japanese would have surrendered even without the use of the nuclear weapons, but there is a even larger number (including many Japanese ones) who claim they were not ready to do so, so there is no way to be sure even in retrospect.

The power, and secondary effects, of the nuclear attacks also shocked the world in a way which would otherwise not have been possible, or anticipated, and probably was the reason further nuclear exchanges and WWIII were averted, becoming the Cold War instead. This was, of course, unanticipated and serendipitous, though fairly obvious in retrospect.

 

[STURM]

The justification for building the 1st nuclear weapons was that Germany and Japan were also trying to make them. A lot of people were hoping that it would prove impossible. Evidence gathered after the war showed that the Germans had taken the wrong track and, as a result, were several years behind the Allies at the end of the war. Japan was on the right track but did not give it any priority, and would not have had the resource base to enrich the necessary uranium in time. Both missed the potential for a plutonium based bomb.

As for using nuclear weapons against Japan, projections were for 1 million to 4 million Allied casualties from the invasion of Japan proper, and 10 million to near extermination for the Japanese if they remained as fanatical as they had to that date. Allied planners had a duty to explore all possible alternatives for avoiding that, and it was difficult to justify not using the nuclear weapons at that time. The decision to deploy chemical weapons as part of the invasion plan had already been made.

The impact of the nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the Japanese a politically acceptable excuse to surrender. Yes, there are some scholars who claim that the Japanese would have surrendered even without the use of the nuclear weapons, but there is a even larger number (including many Japanese ones) who claim they were not ready to do so, so there is no way to be sure even in retrospect.

The power, and secondary effects, of the nuclear attacks also shocked the world in a way which would otherwise not have been possible, or anticipated, and probably was the reason further nuclear exchanges and WWIII were averted, becoming the Cold War instead. This was, of course, unanticipated and serendipitous, though fairly obvious in retrospect.

To makes things plain and simple, whether it was over the need to end the war with Japan, the Cold War, post Cold War uncertainties,etc, despite the known ''risks'' of using nukes, countries still have a compelling need to maintain nuke weapons. And this is unlikely to change.

Back to Afghanistan, here's an interesting link on Karzai, illustrating some of the problems he's facing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...h-the-worlds-loneliest-president-2356124.html

 

[rip]

Political leadership should always be jittery regardless of what country they lead or why and how they lead it. This should be normal and of no special concern.

We certainly have different views of recent history concerning Iran but reviewing those differences, will not resolve anything.

But more importantly is the issue that the only justified use of nuclear weapons and the only reason that they can be rationally used and thus justified is the same and not specific to Iran or any other country.

Because of the tremendous loss of human life involved in nuclear war to both combatants and non-combatants, both inside and outside of the countries, directly involved, the use of nuclear weapons can only be justified to insure the existence of your country when all other methods to preserve it have failed. To prevent a change of leadership, any leadership of any country is not one of them.

Hence what is the justification of having them?

In 1945, at the end of a long and terrible war, where at least 55 million people died, know body was thinking any farther ahead than the end of the terrible war and were certainly not thinking very much about what a world would be like where everybody had them.

Assuming that people can learn from experience then we might all so hope people can and will improve their judgment from that experience. I am not saying that the people who made the decisions to end WW II with nuclear weapon were wrong. They had never been used before there was no experience to guide them. I am saying that now we have a far better understanding of the consequences and must act accordingly.

 

[971]

It’s all about US politics and geography really.


Background:

For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan was a failed attempt to install communism in an effort of securing an alien political and social doctrine to a country that is highly adverse to such changes.

For the US is just a strategic move in line with the occupation of Iraq. The big difference is that in Iraq, US went alone after Sept. 11th oblivious to any and every warning from the international community. They took matters in own hands claiming that US was being attacked and that the terrorism had to be fought. But was that terrorism coming from Iraq at that very time?? Were the highjackers Iraqi? Did Iraq indeed possess weapons of mass destruction and even if it did, what that particular aspect had to do with the New-York attacks?
It was just the time for getting Iraq and its oil resources. Plain and simple. Plus it was just the time in establishing Iraq as THE most important US forward operating base in a highly flammable region where Israel always felt itself threatened and unsecured. With one well planned and surgically executed move, US managed to hit two birds with one shot. But what about the cost?

Now, for the eyes of the world, it was imperative for the US to show that the war on terrorism wasn’t going to stop there. Next move: Afghanistan. It’s funny really. Past events showed that only by providing shelter to Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organisation, Afghanistan had much more – if not everything – to do with the Sept. 11th attacks then Iraq ever did. But I guess that Afghanistan’s lack of oil and its quite distant position from Israel, Syria and the crucial Middle East as a whole, were the main reasons as to why it felt second to Iraq on the US agenda. Still, with foresight in mind, Afghanistan – once controlled – is ideally placed for one that wants to hold another volatile region in check: the Kashmir province where Pakistan and India are at each other throats for decades now. Afghanistan offers a step closer to the southern Russia and the Chinese far-west too.

But now, US DID need international assistance, claiming (with Iraq now promptly secured) that the world have to contribute to the war on terror as well. Gone were now both the decisiveness to attack and indifference towards a not compliant international community which were so eagerly showed before the war on Iraq. Now US needed others to do the dirty job they’ve started.

Why we’re still in Afghanistan?
Two possible answers.

There are those controlled by a well elaborated propaganda who will answer:
“We’re here to combat terrorism and to make the world a better place to live!”

And then, there are those who will answer:
“We honestly don’t know.”

IMPORTANT:
Please refrain from seeing this post as inflammatory and as a reason to start “banging on my door”. It’s my personal opinion. As such you are welcome to sympathize with it or combat it. Just don’t “hang” me as the perpetrator who tries to flame up the well-being of this forum.
It’s just that – regarding the thread’s topic – this is my answer that tries to see past the terrorism and Al-Qaeda curtains, past exhaustive attempts to explain what factions and how many might be responsible or to get entangled in academic show-offs of what’s cliché and what isn’t and grasp the real reason as to why people bleed and die in such God forsaken countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t have any other.

Cheers.

 

[STURM]

For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan was a failed attempt to install communism in an effort of securing an alien political and social doctrine to a country that is highly adverse to such changes.

There was already a socialist pseudo communist government at the time of the Soviet invasion. The invasion happened simply because the Politburo was worried that instability in afghanistan might spread to its Central Asian republics.

 

[My2Cents]

IMPORTANT:
Please refrain from seeing this post as inflammatory and as a reason to start “banging on my door”. It’s my personal opinion. As such you are welcome to sympathize with it or combat it. Just don’t “hang” me as the perpetrator who tries to flame up the well-being of this forum.
It’s just that – regarding the thread’s topic – this is my answer that tries to see past the terrorism and Al-Qaeda curtains, past exhaustive attempts to explain what factions and how many might be responsible or to get entangled in academic show-offs of what’s cliché and what isn’t and grasp the real reason as to why people bleed and die in such God forsaken countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t have any other.

Cheers.

Well, it is sort of hard not to see this as inflammatory when you have such obvious mistakes because of political bias.

You have the 2 invasions reversed. Afghanistan came 1st in 2001. Operation Iraqi Freedom was in 2003.

Iraq was not about the oil, it was Saddam’s refusal to comply with the terms of the armistice ending Operation Desert Storm. If it was about the oil, then it was a colossal failure. The only beneficiaries there were (in order of success) China, UK, and France. The USA is in 4th or 5th, depending on wheter they are still ahead of Venezuela.

On the topic of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) these include chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons. Even the UN and the IAEA were explicit about Iraq’s active concealment and obstruction of their inspectors, and could not conclude neither that Saddam had destroyed the programs as required or that Saddam still had them. Saddam regularly issued press statements in to the world press stating that he had no weapons of mass destruction, then turn around and threaten the other Gulf States with them in the Arabic press (which the world press does not read), so which do you believe? Chemical weapons were found after the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Saddam himself admitted during interrogation after his capture that critical parts and knowledge for the chemical and biological programs had been concealed so they could be revived within 2 years of the dropping of sanctions. The nuclear program requires more infrastructure and so would have taken several years more.

The US and allies never intended a prolonged occupation of Iraq. They were very much caught off guard by the Sunni terrorist movement and degree of anti-Bathist antipathy among the Shia population, and ended up having to stabilize the situation to prevent a Iranian takeover. Currently Iraqi polls indicate a very confused situation – The average Iraqi wants the US military with its patrols and raids to go away, but would like enough continued presence to prevent the government from reverting to strongman rule like under Saddam.

The USA is still in Afghanistan because the Taliban is still allied with al-Qaeda, for which they supplied a base of operations, and which there have made clear they will do again. The US will be there as long as needed to create a regime that will not support al-Qaeda, which could include elements of the Taliban. The US military pullout has obviously been announced to shore up Obama’s political base, just note that the majority will occur AFTER the 2012 Presidential Election.

 

[971]

Well, it is sort of hard not to see this as inflammatory when you have such obvious mistakes because of political bias.

It’s not political bias. It’s personal belief. I’m perfectly capable of forming my own beliefs without the urge of letting myself biased by anything. I’m sure, that wasn’t what you meant though. And if it was political bias, which one would that be? You kinda lost me there.

… it was Saddam’s refusal to comply with the terms of the armistice ending Operation Desert Storm.

Terms which were enforced at the end of a MULTINATIONAL – UN-led coalition. Why was that only the US deemed it a refusal while the rest of the world thought otherwise? Or you suggest maybe that the other nations partaking in Desert Storm didn’t know the details of those terms or whether that Armistice was complied with or not?

You have the 2 invasions reversed. Afghanistan came 1st in 2001. Operation Iraqi Freedom was in 2003.

2001. Afghanistan. That wasn’t an invasion. That wasn’t a full-scale war like in Iraq. That was/is a more or less formal presence that tries with super advanced technology to find holes in the ground and caves in the mountains to root out what time and again proves to be a volatile foe. No front lines; no armies; no battles – only casualties. That hardly qualifies as war.

Even the UN and the IAEA were explicit about Iraq’s active concealment and obstruction of their inspectors, and could not conclude neither that Saddam had destroyed the programs as required or that Saddam still had them.

I vividly remember publicly made IAEA reports which stated its “ghosts chasing” efforts. Sure they found what they found when and if they found something; but nothing compared to US pre-war claims!

Iraq was not about the oil… If it was about the oil, then it was a colossal failure. The only beneficiaries there were (in order of success) China, UK, and France. The USA is in 4th or 5th, depending on wheter they are still ahead of Venezuela.

Well yes and no. It was about the oil but not in the mostly held belief that US had to control it. To use it. No. US had to make sure that it stays there. (I would've liked to post a link here but apparently I'm not allowed to do that yet)


As a note.
I’m sure you are capable to come with all sorts of documented proofs; that much I figured from your previous posts. You seem to be well informed and you show a high degree of well-thought qualified and thorough pace while tackling topics.
As such, I would greatly appreciate if you’d try to see the broader picture that I’m trying to reflect here while countering my opinion and not spend your efforts on petty governmental given explanations and building a “truth factory” with them.
A more dialog-based form of discussing ones’ opinion would be a more effective way for finding common ground then the “fist in the mouth” method of pointing “obvious mistakes because of political bias”. Don’t you think?


Cheers

 

[My2Cents]

Terms which were enforced at the end of a MULTINATIONAL – UN-led coalition. Why was that only the US deemed it a refusal while the rest of the world thought otherwise? Or you suggest maybe that the other nations partaking in Desert Storm didn’t know the details of those terms or whether that Armistice was complied with or not?

The fact that other members of the coalition were not physically represented by units on the ground was mostly due to the tight time schedule in an attempt to avoid fighting in the Iraq in the summer. (They ended up fighting during the summer anyhow during the various uprisings.) The other countries lack the infrastructure to allow them to deploy quickly to the area. Several did physically show up later. At the time of the invasion they expressed public disapproval, but not condemnation.

2001. Afghanistan. That wasn’t an invasion. That wasn’t a full-scale war like in Iraq. That was/is a more or less formal presence that tries with super advanced technology to find holes in the ground and caves in the mountains to root out what time and again proves to be a volatile foe. No front lines; no armies; no battles – only casualties. That hardly qualifies as war.

invasion (noun) -- 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. (the other definitions are not applicable)
Sounds about right.

Correction to the previous
And wars come in all sizes, from massive ones like WW’s I & II, to dinky little ones like [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_war"]Pig War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I vividly remember publicly made IAEA reports which stated its “ghosts chasing” efforts. Sure they found what they found when and if they found something; but nothing compared to US pre-war claims!

But the IAEA could not state that the claims were false either, because Saddam refused to cooperate. And Saddam through his threats in the Arabic press against other nations, especially Iran, did his best to convince his neighbors he still had WMDs, even after the invasion began. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET SADDAM TO COOPERATE WITH THE PEACE TERMS, ANOTHER WAR?

You can only make decisions based on what you know at the time, what they found after the invasion is irrelevant. Everyone has 20-20 hindsight.

Well yes and no. It was about the oil but not in the mostly held belief that US had to control it. To use it. No. US had to make sure that it stays there. (I would've liked to post a link here but apparently I'm not allowed to do that yet)

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean by “US had to make sure that it stays there”. Sounds like you think that the US wanted the oil to stay in the ground, i.e. stop production, which does not make sense.

 

[971]

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean by “US had to make sure that it stays there”. Sounds like you think that the US wanted the oil to stay in the ground, i.e. stop production, which does not make sense.

Sounds intriguing, doesn’t it?
By saying that the oil had to stay there I meant that the US plans called for it to be there still when all was done and over with. Washington didn’t want Saddam to get any funny ideas as what he could do with his country’s oil, especially playing after OPEC’s rules.
As I’ve said: due to not enough postings, I’m not allowed to post links yet. (Truly wonder why…less rigidity and more flexibility anyone?)
So I’ll tell you this. Go to gregpalast.com and search on “adventure-capitalism-the-hidden-2001 (please note the year!!) - plan – to-carve-up-Iraq.
I hope you’ll learn something in case you’re not yet familiar with the issue. Just don’t call it conspiracy theory and spoil everything.

“God bless the free press and curse the day when it was free to noob minds as well.” I once said. Asked what I mean by that, I answered: “That day the conspiracy theory was born.”

And before you say “see, you’re biased after all”, let me assure you that stuff like that is just added weight to what I shared within my circles right after 9/11. That and a lot more that only proved to come true.


Cheers

 

[My2Cents]

Sounds intriguing, doesn’t it?
By saying that the oil had to stay there I meant that the US plans called for it to be there still when all was done and over with. Washington didn’t want Saddam to get any funny ideas as what he could do with his country’s oil, especially playing after OPEC’s rules

So I’ll tell you this. Go to gregpalast.com and search on “adventure-capitalism-the-hidden-2001 (please note the year!!) - plan – to-carve-up-Iraq.
I hope you’ll learn something in case you’re not yet familiar with the issue. Just don’t call it conspiracy theory and spoil everything.

Well … I checked some other articles at the site, and, based on the few I reviewed, Greg Palast is heavily into Conspiracism, is an anti-Semite who believes 9/11 is a Jewish plot, and believes that the Taliban is innocent of any involvement with al-Qaeda. Beyond that Greg Palast is a typical reporter, i.e. he does not have a clue what he is reporting on, but acts as if he is an expert.

But who knows – A clock that runs backward is right 4 times a day.

As for the particular article you referenced -- The ‘secret plans’ in chronological order

1. The oil industry plan – “sell-off the oil fields”, i.e. privatization.
2. The neo-con plan to use massive increases production from Iraq’s oil fields to drive down the price and destroy OPEC. This plan was supposedly approved by Fadhil Chalabi, the secretary general of OPEC. (Huh?)
3. The oil industry representative put in charge of Iraq’s oil production by the US government vehemently opposes the sell-off, and blocks the privatization plan. (Huh? See #1)
4. New oil industry plan calling for the creation of a state owned oil company.

Nowhere is there a reference to anything like “US had to make sure that it stays there”. Maybe it is supposed to mean “{the} US had to make sure that it {the ownership of the oil} stays there {with Iraq}”? Would that be a bad thing?

It is also likely that he is just misinterpreting the various forms of agreements to develop and operate the oil fields. Basically who supplies the financing (which he ignores), who makes the decisions (the company or the government) which he is frothing at the mouth about, and how the profits are split, which he ignores. The belief that the oil companies can just ‘steal’ the oil fields died the 1st time a country nationalized the industry, in 1918. But conspiracists still love the idea. Mao Tse-Tung said it best: “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Governments have the guns, not oil companies.

As I’ve said: due to not enough postings, I’m not allowed to post links yet. (Truly wonder why…less rigidity and more flexibility anyone?)

You need something like 25 posts before you can do links. They probably do it as a simple means to discourage spammers.

 

[ngatimozart]

Interestingly I remember an item played on the TV here prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. It was some US Senator saying "that is our oil in Iraq and we're going to get it". IIRC it was on a news item. Many people in my country felt that it was all about oil and not about 9/11. We still do. Afghanistan is different and we can see the logic behind it and we do have troops in Afghanistan, but Iraq was different. As it turns out what Bush and Blair claimed was reasons to attack Iraq were fabrications and technically the 2003 Iraq war is a war of aggression. Exactly the same as what Saddam did to Kuwait in 1990. Bush and Blair should be hauled before a War Crimes tribunal for that but like that's gonna ever happen. Anything linking Saddam Hussein to AQ was tenuous at the very best. the reasons given for Iraq was all smoke and mirrors.

I totally agree with wiping out AQ, but I also do not like the way prisoners have been treated e.g., rendition. Put it down to personal idiosyncrasies. All it does is lower you to level of them mongrels. Holding the high ground is a very important and basic concept in military terms. Holding the moral high ground is the same. Hearts and minds - it works every time. Once you start breaking the basic laws of your society e.g., torture, or imprisonment with recourse to legal council, or a fair and equitable trial, basic human rights, doesn't that just make you no better than the mongrels your chasing? Once you lose that moral high ground it is very hard to claim it back, if ever. That is where I think the US has made it very difficult for themselves, especially in the eyes of Afghans, Arabs and a lot of other non US people. Hopefully the US will be able to recover from this error - it has too.

 

[rip]

Interestingly I remember an item played on the TV here prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. It was some US Senator saying "that is our oil in Iraq and we're going to get it". IIRC it was on a news item. Many people in my country felt that it was all about oil and not about 9/11. We still do. Afghanistan is different and we can see the logic behind it and we do have troops in Afghanistan, but Iraq was different. As it turns out what Bush and Blair claimed was reasons to attack Iraq were fabrications and technically the 2003 Iraq war is a war of aggression. Exactly the same as what Saddam did to Kuwait in 1990. Bush and Blair should be hauled before a War Crimes tribunal for that but like that's gonna ever happen. Anything linking Saddam Hussein to AQ was tenuous at the very best. the reasons given for Iraq was all smoke and mirrors.

I totally agree with wiping out AQ, but I also do not like the way prisoners have been treated e.g., rendition. Put it down to personal idiosyncrasies. All it does is lower you to level of them mongrels. Holding the high ground is a very important and basic concept in military terms. Holding the moral high ground is the same. Hearts and minds - it works every time. Once you start breaking the basic laws of your society e.g., torture, or imprisonment with recourse to legal council, or a fair and equitable trial, basic human rights, doesn't that just make you no better than the mongrels your chasing? Once you lose that moral high ground it is very hard to claim it back, if ever. That is where I think the US has made it very difficult for themselves, especially in the eyes of Afghans, Arabs and a lot of other non US people. Hopefully the US will be able to recover from this error - it has too.

The question that was originally raised was why is the US still in Afghanistan? But what that question really means is, by what criteria can the US declare victory and then leave Afghanistan? And the question is a larger one than just what the US dose and what it wants or thinks is in its best interest for just its self. It is a bigger question because depending upon its response to the new tactics first used by the fanatics of mass targeting of civilians by a stateless entity, it will also determine the precedents to all such attacks that may happen in the future. The precedent that the US makes will in a very major way determine when, and or if, those fanatical tactics will or will not be used again. So it concerns everybody in the world and how the world will look like in the future.

Let us review the salient facts and for just once and by pass all the false rhetoric and political maneuvering that has gone on up to this point and which has been endlessly cataloged by people as if it was important but in truth misses the real issues and so only just confuses people from the real issues that are at stake.

Fact One. The US civilian population was attacked by fanatics, by using the US’s own public infrastructure. That attack then resulted in the large loss of life and property. It was done so as to intimidate and control the US population in such a way so as to then allow the evil fanatics to pursue their fanatical evil agenda throughout the world. Why they thought that the US was deserving of such an attack or why they thought such an attack would benefit them and their agenda is completely unimportant. If they succeed in changing the US behavior to the point that it then makes it easier for them to pursue their evil agenda they not only win but by succeeding in their objective by using such means they have legitimized their tactics and those tactics will be used again and more often and not just against the US.

Fact Two. The goal is not only to defect this particular group of evil fanatics and those that have supported and protected them but to make the very tactics which they have employed so counterproductive and unprofitable that those tactics will never be used again by any group of fanatics regardless of their cause or agenda against the US or anybody else. That is why we cannot let the fanatics win.

Fact Three. The response to the attack on the US have so far failed to accomplish the primary objective. It is not because no means are available to accomplish them as some have chosen to believe but because the leadership has and still remains unable to use the methods that have successfully be used in the past to deal with fanatics who do not care if they die, do not care how many people they kill, and do not care how many of their own die and suffer as a result of their actions.

I leave it to the individual members of the board to research what those methods once were and how ultimately effective they were.

Fact Four. If you look at all the death, destruction, and suffering that has gone on over the last ten years and all of the wealth that has been wasted can you say that the old barbaric and uncivilized ways of the past could have been any worse? It could have been over in a few months and the world would have gone on. The US would have been long gone from Afghanistan but more importantly the message would have been crystal clear and the lesson learned. It is too late now for the simple solution.

 

[ngatimozart]

The question that was originally raised was why is the US still in Afghanistan? But what that question really means is, by what criteria can the US declare victory and then leave Afghanistan? And the question is a larger one than just what the US dose and what it wants or thinks is in its best interest for just its self. It is a bigger question because depending upon its response to the new tactics first used by the fanatics of mass targeting of civilians by a stateless entity, it will also determine the precedents to all such attacks that may happen in the future. The precedent that the US makes will in a very major way determine when, and or if, those fanatical tactics will or will not be used again. So it concerns everybody in the world and how the world will look like in the future.

Let us review the salient facts and for just once and by pass all the false rhetoric and political maneuvering that has gone on up to this point and which has been endlessly cataloged by people as if it was important but in truth misses the real issues and so only just confuses people from the real issues that are at stake.

Fact One. The US civilian population was attacked by fanatics, by using the US’s own public infrastructure. That attack then resulted in the large loss of life and property. It was done so as to intimidate and control the US population in such a way so as to then allow the evil fanatics to pursue their fanatical evil agenda throughout the world. Why they thought that the US was deserving of such an attack or why they thought such an attack would benefit them and their agenda is completely unimportant. If they succeed in changing the US behavior to the point that it then makes it easier for them to pursue their evil agenda they not only win but by succeeding in their objective by using such means they have legitimized their tactics and those tactics will be used again and more often and not just against the US.

Fact Two. The goal is not only to defect this particular group of evil fanatics and those that have supported and protected them but to make the very tactics which they have employed so counterproductive and unprofitable that those tactics will never be used again by any group of fanatics regardless of their cause or agenda against the US or anybody else. That is why we cannot let the fanatics win.

Fact Three. The response to the attack on the US have so far failed to accomplish the primary objective. It is not because no means are available to accomplish them as some have chosen to believe but because the leadership has and still remains unable to use the methods that have successfully be used in the past to deal with fanatics who do not care if they die, do not care how many people they kill, and do not care how many of their own die and suffer as a result of their actions.

I leave it to the individual members of the board to research what those methods once were and how ultimately effective they were.

Fact Four. If you look at all the death, destruction, and suffering that has gone on over the last ten years and all of the wealth that has been wasted can you say that the old barbaric and uncivilized ways of the past could have been any worse? It could have been over in a few months and the world would have gone on. The US would have been long gone from Afghanistan but more importantly the message would have been crystal clear and the lesson learned. It is too late now for the simple solution.

I have made my point and maybe Putin had the idea when he told the Chechins "You can come and hit us with suicide bombs, but we will find every bit of you and bury you inside a pig carcass. You will not go to paradise". And you will not collect the 70 virgins. Suicide bombings in Russia dropped off markedly.

I think the US is repeating Vietnam all over again. Using regular forces to fight an irregular war. You are right far too much treasure has been expended and blood spilt for what gain? The ROE means that Mr Taliban rides up is taxi loses off a few AK rounds gets another taxi home. Once he is in that taxi he cannot be touched. Take the fight to the Taliban not by using drones, but by likes of the SAS on the ground, hounding them killing them, when and where they least expect it - e.g., in their bed. This at the same time reduces what the Americans call collateral damage. This is the type of mission that the likes of the SAS excel at. Hunt them down like the mongrels them are, give them no rest, and bury them with a couple of rashers of bacon, to ensure that they do not go to paradise.

My thoughts NM.

Addition. Make it very well known publicly that you are hunting and targeting all Taliban, AQ, plus insurgents and that they will be killed and buried with pork. The pork makes them very very unclean before Allah. Would give more than a few second thoughts, especially if they are being hunted in supposedly secure area.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread under review by the Mod Team