Afghanistan and released American documents [Archive]

racedo

10th Dec 2019, 17:24

US Debt is €23 trillion, actual spend on Afghanistan is 10% of that figure via all the Govt agencies and Afghanistan is less safe for the population than it was in 2001 !!!!

US warned Iran in 1998 that if it sought to go into Afghanistan then, to take action after 10 diplomats had been murdered in Herat, then the US would intervene, even when everybody knew what the Taliban were like.

Couple of months before 9/11 Collin Powell was handing the Taliban cash for reducing opium production.

In Nov 2001 visiting NYC, a lady friend there was engaged to a 8yr vet from Ft Bragg units, he said "No single person he knew thought going to Afghanistan was a good idea, but nobody was speaking out as it would be treason". He recruited at weekends etc for USCG and had for 10 yrs.

Seems West is full of people who deride ANYBODY who questions their desire for war as Terrorist Appeasers.

But all those who made money from it are generous in the "Thank you for your service" refrain and some charitable giving. All the while ignoring 1-2 million people, vets, their families and friends who lives have been destroyed plus the Afghani people.

If standing up and questioning your countrys stupidity, again and again, makes a person a terrorist appeaser, especially when the outcome they said is proven. What does it make the cheerleaders for war who happily destroy their countrys economy by borrowing money they can never repay or destroying countles lives in a bloodlust.

Lonewolf_50

10th Dec 2019, 18:39

Makes pretty damning reading

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/confidential-documents-reveal-us-officials-failed-to-tell-the-truth-about-the-war-in-afghanistan/ar-BBXZAJC I have to ask: what does winning look like? Getting the Taliban out of being the ruling business was a success, but that's only half of the political issue/objective. The second half is the long game, and I guess I'll have to read the papers to see what they have to say. In the mid 00's my own frustration with how we turned a blind eye to Pakistan providing not just sanctuary to Tban, but also material support, has been coming out in various published material as operatives retirea and decide to tell their story.

Had the decision not been made to go into Iraq, I wonder at how the efforts would have been affected there.
Perhaps not that much. Counterfactuals are a mess, but given how the Pakistani efforts (heck, understandable I suppose, that is their neighborhood) rarely aligned with our objectives there was only going to be so much progress. .

BVRAAM

10th Dec 2019, 19:18

Afghanistan was a noble endeavour in 2001.
Fast forward a few years and it become a cash grab for a select few very wealthy people.

It's despicable and the time to bring everybody home is now - the children of those born on 9/11 whose parents went off to war, are now eligible to serve in the same theatre 18 years later. That is awful.
The Afghan people do not deserve this. I'm not convinced they even know what's going on in their own country, or if they even want Western interference.
Thinking you can influence and change a tribal nation in a couple decades, with a few billion in military handouts is the most arrogant attitude the world has ever known.

racedo

10th Dec 2019, 20:20

Afghanistan was a noble endeavour in 2001.
.

It was and had quagmire written all over it.

What was it's purpose ? As the report says it had something for everyone under the Christmas tree eventually.

Most could realitively easily been achieved by cutting off the funders for it and making the neighbouring countrys ensure not a lot in or out. Course when you look at who was supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda then it could have been done relatively easily by just freezing their bank accounts in the west, taking their assets and waiting.
Instead invade, screw up and never leave to be repeated in Iraq and elsewhere and the nation behind it just sends people to be trained at Pcola where they kill some more people.

BVRAAM

10th Dec 2019, 20:27

The problem is that the identity of the government that sanctioned 9/11, was kept locked away, on a top secret server for years.
I have no doubt that the Bush family's oil business in Saudi Arabia had something to do with it.
The best thing Obama did was declassify that report.
I feel nothing for Saudi. Nothing nice anyway.

Lonewolf_50

11th Dec 2019, 14:07

Most could realitively easily been achieved The problem with your pie in the sky assertion is one word. I bolded it for you.
Nothing is as easy as you think it is.

racedo

11th Dec 2019, 19:51

The problem with your pie in the sky assertion is one word. I bolded it for you.
Nothing is as easy as you think it is.

It would have been a lot easier than $2 trillion, thousands of lives lost and pretty much no further forward than 2001 aside from a lot of wealthy US citizens who made millions off Uncle Sam while other US Citizens paid the ultimate price. (I'm ignoring the citizens off other countrys who made millions from it........... they scum as well.)

Get the paymasters and stop the stuff going in there would have been a start, a lot more would have followed suit.

Taliban came to power in 1990's because they brought order from the chaos of CIA toppling Afghani Govt, that is why people supported them not because a belief in their way. Stop the goodies going in and out and see the outcome.

Course taking on Pakistan / Saudi Arabia / UAE whpo recognised the Taliban Govt would have upset some people making millions but in 2001 US post 9/11 had the goodwill of the world and pissed it away.

gums

11th Dec 2019, 20:14

Salute!

I have refrained from jumping into this political discussion, except for my personal life when my government ordered me to "help" another group of folks from being overcome by the Reds, aka Commies.
In short, it didn't work. What worked was what worked in Europe and Japan after WW2. Occupation. Military police at every corner. Protect the local pols so they could figure out a way to satisfy the victors - us! And then leave the SOB's to do what they want.
I spent years in SEA, and got to know the locals that were not in their military, but basic everyday folks. They simply wanted to live their lives growing stuff, trading stuff, performing services and so forth. No ideology, but basic freedoms to live their lives as our U.S. founders envisioned.
The insurgents in SEA were also very different from what faced us in the 'stan or closeby.
Those folks were nothing like what our troops have had to deal with in the 'stan. The fanatic Muslims are nothing like what we dealt with in Vietnam or the Brits did in the Malay penisnula or even the Phillipine stuff way back.
In short, using the military to capture the hearts and minds of the local just doesn't work, and never will. The indigenous folks must want a certain way of life and be willing to die to maintain that. If they want to be wards of the state and give up their individual freedoms, then so be it.

Gums opines...

SASless

12th Dec 2019, 02:53

BVRAAM

12th Dec 2019, 19:53

There is no truth in War.

I firmly believe there are no Winners when it gets down to the folks doing the fighting, killing, and dying.....just survivors.

Until we return to the ancient way of war fighting....killing every one of the other side you encounter and destroying everything of theirs you encounter.....with no quarter given.....we shall keep on losing lives and spending treasure to no good end.

A bit of compassion for the innocent would do you the world of good.
Civilian casualties are low in modern warfare because of carefully selected engagements. Your proposed method would send the collateral damage count back to where it was in decades past. That's unacceptable.

Face it, we've morally evolved. We've moved on. It's immoral to mow anyone down who even remotely resembles "the enemy," without necessary checks and balances carried out by rational thinkers, and not trigger pulling "drones" who kill whatever they like. We're better than that.

SASless

12th Dec 2019, 20:45

Face it, we've morally evolved. We've moved on. It's immoral to mow anyone down who even remotely resembles "the enemy," without necessary checks and balances carried out by rational thinkers, and not trigger pulling "drones" who kill whatever they like. We're better than that.

The only thing you left out was a staff of lawyers to prosecute our own troops for violating overly restrictive rules of engagement that get our folks killed for no good reason.

That is what your way of thinking has gotten us and one defeat after another in wars that never end.

Homelover

12th Dec 2019, 20:49

A bit of compassion for the innocent would do you the world of good.
Civilian casualties are low in modern warfare because of carefully selected engagements. Your proposed method would send the collateral damage count back to where it was in decades past. That's unacceptable.

Face it, we've morally evolved. We've moved on. It's immoral to mow anyone down who even remotely resembles "the enemy," without necessary checks and balances carried out by rational thinkers, and not trigger pulling "drones" who kill whatever they like. We're better than that.

BVRAAM.

As I understand it, you are still waiting to start your military career, so I think you should avoid lecturing someone like SASless on the ethics of warfare until you’ve actually ‘got some time in’ yourself. You might find you feel differently once you have got a little experience....

orca

12th Dec 2019, 21:19

What’s a trigger pulling drone?

BVRAAM

12th Dec 2019, 21:28

BVRAAM.

As I understand it, you are still waiting to start your military career, so I think you should avoid lecturing someone like SASless on the ethics of warfare until you’ve actually ‘got some time in’ yourself. You might find you feel differently once you have got a little experience....

Maybe so.

But, I don't want the military of my country going backwards. They're far better than the enemies they've been fighting over the last 25+ years. To go backwards, simply closes the morality gap, instead of opening it.
I think my views are in the majority within our society.

The whole calling a lawyer before pulling the trigger point is an entirely separate debate, and is a bit of a red herring to the point that was brought in to question.

etudiant

12th Dec 2019, 22:05

Maybe so.

But, I don't want the military of my country going backwards. They're far better than the enemies they've been fighting over the last 25+ years. To go backwards, simply closes the morality gap, instead of opening it.
I think my views are in the majority within our society.

The whole calling a lawyer before pulling the trigger point is an entirely separate debate, and is a bit of a red herring to the point that was brought in to question.

Your sentiments seem seriously at variance with the way the government policy is determined, in the UK, in Europe or in NATO.
Libya was by far the fastest growing economy in Africa and Syria was a functioning multi religious state when NATO, France and the UK decided that Qaddafi and Assad had to go and unleashed the killing. The result has been a series of catastrophes, one of which was the massive flight of refugees now stressing Europe.
Those decisions were not made with any perceptible moral compass. Demanding that the military execute the resultant immoral policies morally is at best self deluded, it is impossible.

NutLoose

12th Dec 2019, 22:07

Better, in what respect, technology, morality, what? I ask because despite all the technology, monies and morality, there are still countries In the world that we have destabilised and I wouldn't walk down a street in, you can declare victory in any war, but the fact it is still going on does not mean victory has been won, simply political expediency in declaring it.

Technology and money do not win wars, when you have a convoy of millions of pounds worth of armoured vehicles rolling down a road following a man with a mine sweeper looking for a £5 bomb you're technology advantage is neutralised. The only way you can take and hold a country is feet on the ground in overwhelming numbers, something that these days isn't sustainable or practicable.

phil9560

12th Dec 2019, 22:50

'Typhoon93' anyone ?

BVRAAM

12th Dec 2019, 23:15

Your sentiments seem seriously at variance with the way the government policy is determined, in the UK, in Europe or in NATO.
Libya was by far the fastest growing economy in Africa and Syria was a functioning multi religious state when NATO, France and the UK decided that Qaddafi and Assad had to go and unleashed the killing. The result has been a series of catastrophes, one of which was the massive flight of refugees now stressing Europe.
Those decisions were not made with any perceptible moral compass. Demanding that the military execute the resultant immoral policies morally is at best self deluded, it is impossible.

I once had the same moral opinion as our government of that time, with regards to Libya. I no longer share that moral opinion - I can't imagine many people in the military do either?
The liberals will still praise Barack Obama as some kind of moral hero, when the evidence suggests otherwise. Good point.

We, and I say 'we' as an international alliance, need to step our game up. This isn't sustainable.

heights good

13th Dec 2019, 17:10

It's immoral to mow anyone down who even remotely resembles "the enemy," without necessary checks and balances carried out by rational thinkers, and not trigger pulling "drones" who kill whatever they like. We're better than that.

"Drones" are WAY over-scrutinised than say, a Typhoon or F16, who has only himself 'in the loop' for an engagement.

RPAS are not autonomous, they have a crew of 3 who ALL make a decision on the engagement and whether it is legitimate. Then there is the video feed from said RPAS being beamed all around the world and is recorded on a plethora of hard drives and seen by literally hundreds, if not thousands of people LIVE.

The RPAS crew also have numerous comms systems that anyone who is on the system can use to speak DIRECTLY to the crew. This includes several 'adults' who can stop ANY engagement.

RPAS are WAY WAY less autonomous and WAY WAY more accountable than a Typhoon running in at 420 kts, pulling up, dropping a PWIV and being 10 miles away before impact....

oicur12.again

13th Dec 2019, 20:46

SASless

13th Dec 2019, 21:38

I would suggest unless you have done it....you do not qualify as possessing a truly informed opinion as you only theoretical concepts as a basis for your opinions.

You certainly are welcome to your opinion but please do accept there is a certain data set that only comes with direct exposure to the real in addition to theory.

If you have not bearded the Dragon in his Den.....then all you have is second hand accounts to discuss.

heights good

13th Dec 2019, 21:47

“I think you should avoid lecturing someone like SASless on the ethics of warfare until you’ve actually ‘got some time in’ yourself.”

The great diversionary tactic, you haven't done it so you are not entitled to an opinion about it.

Fortunately the world doesn't actually operate according to this absurd dictum.

Whilst I do agree that it could be a diversionary tactic, it is easy to criticise when you haven't experienced something.

Whilst morals appear to be an absolute, this is not the case, they are merely a case of latitude and longitude and social constructs.

Having had several conversations over the year with family, friends and academics (MA in Int'l Relations) it is immediately clear that when people talk of morals they actually mean ethics. The conversation normally resorts to "it should not be legal to kill someone" or "drones are just executing people" or "what gives you the right to be judge and jury" and so on....

Very rarely does it resort to morals i.e. How do I justify it in my own head.

Most people are happy with the inherent right to self-defence but are aggressively opposed to killing in war. This in my mind is because they have never actually been shot at and rarely understand the ethics of war as its easy when sitting with a coffee in a centrally heated house to judge and not appreciate the nuances of war.

I would never tell a woman about the experience or rights/wrongs on child birth....

Just my opinion

BVRAAM

13th Dec 2019, 21:57

"Drones" are WAY over-scrutinised than say, a Typhoon or F16, who has only himself 'in the loop' for an engagement.

RPAS are not autonomous, they have a crew of 3 who ALL make a decision on the engagement and whether it is legitimate. Then there is the video feed from said RPAS being beamed all around the world and is recorded on a plethora of hard drives and seen by literally hundreds, if not thousands of people LIVE.

The RPAS crew also have numerous comms systems that anyone who is on the system can use to speak DIRECTLY to the crew. This includes several 'adults' who can stop ANY engagement.

RPAS are WAY WAY less autonomous and WAY WAY more accountable than a Typhoon running in at 420 kts, pulling up, dropping a PWIV and being 10 miles away before impact....

I wasn't talking about RPAS - I fully respect RPAS guys, they're legends and then some.
"Drone" was quoted for a reason. In this context it was for a person who acts in a way that is the complete opposite to a thinker. That is not somebody I want serving in our nation's military - and thankfully the selection seems robust enough to prevent that, which is why we have the best in the world.

BVRAAM

13th Dec 2019, 23:23

“I think you should avoid lecturing someone like SASless on the ethics of warfare until you’ve actually ‘got some time in’ yourself.”

The great diversionary tactic, you haven't done it so you are not entitled to an opinion about it.

Fortunately the world doesn't actually operate according to this absurd dictum.

Thank you - and also rather ironic given that it's very likely all candidates going through Officer selection in the Pilot branch, will be asked a question about their views on killing.

I have no moral objection to killing in self defence or in war, provided the right person/people are killed for the right reasons, within the rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict, to achieve the objectives of the mission, whilst using the minimum amount of force required.
Those individuals were a part of a team, they might be professionals on the other side, or they might be religious nuts - either way, they knew the risk of what they were doing and they accepted it.
The civilians caught in the crossfire of some mad man, who wants to kill everything until nothing's left, did not accept to be in that position. I therefore maintain my position that SASless' comments demonstrate a lack of compassion for the innocent.

gums

14th Dec 2019, 01:29

Salute!

The civilians caught in the crossfire of some mad man, who wants to kill everything until nothing's left, did not accept to be in that position. I therefore maintain my position that SASless' comments demonstrate a lack of compassion for the innocent.

I will guarantee that we attack pilots where SAS flew and was wounded thought a lot about innocent folks close to the enemy. Our compasion prolly resiulted in more deaths by we "good" guys than necessary to protect the friendly folks.

I never saw or flew with any "mad man" that wanted to kill everything in close air support missions or SAR missions. But all here are free to believe what they wish.

In all fairness, my body count was prolly 200 or 300 poor Vee. Am I proud? Gotta be kidding me. Most were shooting at me. Most were shooting at friends of mine from U.S., Australia, Korea, South Vietnam and so forth.

As I stated earlier, I do not support military actions to either impose or attempt to "nation build" .

There are reasons to support some folks that can play a role in our national interests, but that is not for we grunts to decide. We just ride into the valley and do or die. If we do not agree and live long enuf, then we get out and then call our press conference.

Gums opines...

SASless

14th Dec 2019, 02:38

I never could understand why complete strangers tried so hard to kill me.....had they got to know me....it would have made far more sense.

We had relatively strict ROE's for the time....and each morning we briefed the Crew from a Yellow Card that had the Rules printed upon it....much like Cops and the Miranda warning cards required to be read to those they arrest e these days.

We had a terrible tragedy at a place called My Lai....US troops murdering almost 400 villagers.

A fellow Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and his enlisted Door Gunner stopped some of the troops from killing yet more villagers by turning the door gun on the troops and telling them they would shoot.

The Warrant Officer then filed a Report on the murders which kicked off the initial investigation, by a Captain who later became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs named Colin Powell, which attempted to cover up the murders.

To put My Lai Into perspective....during the Tet 1968 attack on Hue....the NVA and VC murdered over 3,000 South Vietnames....Doctors, Lawyers, Politcians, Teachers, their families including Children.

As we are saying.....war and morality are not linear concepts.

Homelover

14th Dec 2019, 08:09

Asturias56

14th Dec 2019, 08:58

Easy Street

14th Dec 2019, 09:51

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 11:18

There is no truth in War.

I firmly believe there are no Winners when it gets down to the folks doing the fighting, killing, and dying.....just survivors.

Until we return to the ancient way of war fighting....killing every one of the other side you encounter and destroying everything of theirs you encounter.....with no quarter given.....we shall keep on losing lives and spending treasure to no good end.

So basically you are advocating going into whatever country you choose, slaughtering everybody you can to meet the objectives set by Washington.

Course you realise that means open season on US citizens everywhere, not like the old days where the "Ethernopians" all lived there, they now live everywhere including the US. Now they see all their culture and people being obliterated because everything is okayed by DC.

Would you expect people NOT to bring the war to the US ? everywhere ? Personally I would expect it and the small (and it is small) US military casualties get dwarfed by attacks at home on everywhere.

I had assummed that the World had removed many people advocating this viewpoint and mindset in 1945.

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 11:24

The only thing you left out was a staff of lawyers to prosecute our own troops for violating overly restrictive rules of engagement that get our folks killed for no good reason.

That is what your way of thinking has gotten us and one defeat after another in wars that never end.

How many times in the last 60 years have US personnel ended in jail because of their actions in conflict.

Just to the nearest hundred will do.

In that time how many people have been killed in these conflicts, basically so we have a rough dead to jailed people idea.

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 11:32

I never could understand why complete strangers tried so hard to kill me.....had they got to know me....it would have made far more sense.

Maybe because you were in their country, thousands of miles from home, armed to the teeth.

How would you react to a foreign country invading the US and doing the same ?

We had a terrible tragedy at a place called My Lai....US troops murdering almost 400 villagers.
A fellow Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and his enlisted Door Gunner stopped some of the troops from killing yet more villagers by turning the door gun on the troops and telling them they would shoot.
The Warrant Officer then filed a Report on the murders which kicked off the initial investigation, by a Captain who later became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs named Colin Powell, which attempted to cover up the murders.
To put My Lai Into perspective....during the Tet 1968 attack on Hue....the NVA and VC murdered over 3,000 South Vietnames....Doctors, Lawyers, Politcians, Teachers, their families including Children.
As we are saying.....war and morality are not linear concepts.

Seymour Hersch wrote that My Lai was the one people found out about, as a result of the actions of the crew, he has recounted being told on numerous times that others went on but there was nobody around and nobody collected the details or cared.

How many people went to jail for My Lai ?

SASless

14th Dec 2019, 11:39

Easy Street sums it up in a few short sentences of the fallacies under which we have forced our Troops to operate.

As he knows from firsthand experience.....his is a very qualified insight into the issues we confront.

How do we achieve the goals of destroying the enemy's ability and will to fight using current tactics, weapons, and forces using current policies, rules, and regulations?

Racedo,

My response to you remains the same as in the past....please speak for yourself and do not attempt to speak for me....I am quite capable of doing that on my own.

I seem to recall we have no monopoly on prosecuting our own.

One thing that is different between the UK and the USA is we do it immediately and not wait decades to dredge up excuses to prosecute folks.

The UK has a long history of doing exactly what you attempt to accuse my side of doing so first point the finger at your side.

There are many museums in London that celebrate gallant battles lost in your history.

I guess that is part of the reason why it used to be the British Empire and now is just the UK.

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 11:44

Racedo,

My response to you remains the same....please speak for yourself and do not speak for me....I am quite capable for doing that on my own.

I seem to recall we have no monopoly on prosecuting our own.

One thing that is different between the UK and the USA is we do it immediately and not wait decades to dredge up excuses to prosecute folks.

The UK has a long history of doing exactly what you attempt to accuse my side of doing so first point the finger at your side.

There are many museums in London that celebrate gallant battles lost in your history.

I guess that is part of the reason why it used to be the British Empire and now is down to the UK.

When I attempt to justify the British Empire, Jimmy Carter will again be President of the US, both will be never.
UK and US rarely if ever prosecute their own military for what they do and yes I believe both have been involved in what constitutes war crimes that get covered up.

I have not tried to justify anything, you seek war with zero quarter given to anybody.

SASless

14th Dec 2019, 12:03

I firmly believe that....to the bottom of my heart.

I participated in a war where we never invaded the enemy homeland and destroyed the enemy forces and their ability to maintain their combat forces.

Our Air Force could not destroy their airfields and support units and had to wait until the Migs engaged our aircraft before they could do battle with them.

Our Air Force was denied the ability to destroy enemy SAM sites and had to suffer serious losses as a result.

We had Rules of Engagement that undercut our ability to seek out and destroy the enemy supply system and allowed them to operate in Cambodia and Laos safe from ground attack and as they were could only be attacked by air.

If I got shot at....I had to call for permission to return fire unless my aircraft and crew were in imminent loss due to the ground fire.

We took control of enemy territory then turned around and gave it back to them as our Leadership had decided to engage in a War of Attrition....where killing the enemy was the measure of success in violation of everything we had learned from previous wars.

That is NOT the way to wage War.

It only guarantees a long drawn out conflict with maximum casualties on both sides with no hope of a certain victory.

When they finally turned us loose to do what the US Army does best.....we cleaned out the part of Cambodia we were allowed to enter.

That provided a period of time where the NVA were unable to operate inside that part of South Vietnam.

The NVA had to operate exactly opposite of the usual way of supplying forces....they had to establish their logistical base ahead of operations.

We destroyed that ability while we were in Cambodia....until we had to withdraw due to political resistance by our own Congress.

One Third of my Flight School Class died in that War.....I know of what I speak.

Easy Street

14th Dec 2019, 12:12

you seek war with zero quarter given to anybody.

I think you and SASless are talking past each other somewhat. You see Western intervention as imperialism. He sees it as difficult or impossible for the West to do any good within the operational, legal and ethical boundaries it imposes on itself. The logical end point of both of your arguments is that the West should stay out of foreign conflicts which pose no genuine, direct and immediate threat to national security. Am I right?

A great irony of the wider dilemma is that many of those who are most vociferous about the evil wrought by Western adventurism are just as keen to push Western ethical standards on foreigners and intervene when they refuse to accede. I don’t accuse you of that, but unfortunately it is a commonly-held stance in certain sections of the political establishment.

SASless

14th Dec 2019, 12:25

The logical end point of both of your arguments is that the West should stay out of foreign conflicts which pose no genuine, direct and immediate threat to national security. Am I right?

You are exactly right.

If we are going to wage War....it has to be for reasons that both allow for and demand the application of the maximum amount of over whelming force required to defeat the enemy ability and will to fight.

There is never any reason to "Half Step" it when it comes to a War.

Emphasis is on the word "War"...not Police Action, Conflict, Incursion, Overseas Contingency Operation, Nation Building.

etudiant

14th Dec 2019, 12:28

"Libya was by far the fastest growing economy in Africa"

I really don't think so - it was disfunctional lunatic asylum where no-one worked at all and the money was made by shipping oil and trousering the cash

The GNP stats show pretty decent growth and there were large scale civil infrastructure investments, so the country was moving forward, despite the flaws.
Now it is a mad Max situation, thanks to the NATO intervention.

Asturias56

14th Dec 2019, 13:29

gums

14th Dec 2019, 16:16

Salute!

Thank you both - SAS and Easy. I think my wife , who was with me for all my tours, and knew many of my friends that never came back will also thank you for your viewpoint.

The point about losing more friendlies by trying not to cause collateral damage is a good one. It allowed the enemy SAS and I faced at about the same time to rove freely and melt back into forbidden territory we could not strike. That stoopid war cost me and my family and friends 10 years of our lives, and it also cost us losing 40 or 50 that never returned.

During the 68 Tet I bombed some village that the local province chief claimed was housing bad guys. It later turned out it was a family feud thing and the goal was to hit his brother-in-law, or equivalent. The 72-73 return of airpower to the North was much less restrictive. We got outta there by the end of the year. Let's face it, all we wanted by then was to get the POW's out (I guarantee I know more then anyone here), and quit the whole damned fiasco.

Once you release the dogs of war, then you must weigh the losses of good folks that carry guns as well as those simply going about their business. There is no simple answer or magic formula. War is a terrible thing. But only the dead will know the end of war.

Gotta go before bringing too many bad vibes to this old brain.

Gums sends...

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 18:45

I think you and SASless are talking past each other somewhat. You see Western intervention as imperialism. He sees it as difficult or impossible for the West to do any good within the operational, legal and ethical boundaries it imposes on itself. The logical end point of both of your arguments is that the West should stay out of foreign conflicts which pose no genuine, direct and immediate threat to national security. Am I right?

Well you not wrong :)

We have different viewpoints and disagree on lots but genuinely respect his opinion because he has always been honest.
Doesn't mean we won't argue from different points of view in another thread.

A great irony of the wider dilemma is that many of those who are most vociferous about the evil wrought by Western adventurism are just as keen to push Western ethical standards on foreigners and intervene when they refuse to accede. I don’t accuse you of that, but unfortunately it is a commonly-held stance in certain sections of the political establishment.

Western standards suck, the 2 strands that are pushed are the Liberal standards where everything goes or conservatives ones where borrow to the hilt and do as we say and we will be rich. Both destroy a country, enrich a few local people and enrich a lot of western people.

The days of building infrastructure in the country from the West are dead, it is kind of why China has success in may countries, it stays out of lecturing about what people should do and builds the infrastructure.

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 18:49

Etudiant

The GNP numbers were dodgier than hell, the infrastructure projects never happened (but the money did disappear)

I know people who were doing business there and it was dreadful - a tiny clique around Qaddafi stealing everything and the main man several cents short of the dollar

Wrong they did, including a great water project that NATO bombed.

UK / France attacked Libya because Sarkozy wanted more cash for his election projects, Gadaffi wanted more cash from Oil companies with oil at £100 plu a barrel. Gadaffi told Sarkozy he would go public on his corruption.

Sunfish

14th Dec 2019, 20:13

Anyone who has studied Afghan history would have known that America was the absolute last nation that should have invaded Afghanistan because the people concerned are exact temperamental opposites. Kipling summed it up perfectly:

Arithmetic on the Frontier http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/jezail2.jpg

A GREAT and glorious thing it is
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgTo learn, for seven years or so,
The Lord knows what of that and this,
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgEre reckoned fit to face the foe -
The flying bullet down the Pass,
That whistles clear: "All flesh is grass."

Three hundred pounds per annum spent
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgOn making brain and body meeter
For all the murderous intent
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgComprised in "villainous saltpetre".
And after?- Ask the Yusufzaies
What comes of all our 'ologies.

A scrimmage in a Border Station-
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgA canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgDrops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

No proposition Euclid wrote
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgNo formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgOr ward the tulwar's downward blow.
Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can
The odds are on the cheaper man.

One sword-knot stolen from the camp
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgWill pay for all the school expenses
Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgWho knows no word of moods and tenses,
But, being blessed with perfect sight,
Picks off our messmates left and right.

With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgThe troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/pix/spacer.jpgTo slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.

SASless

14th Dec 2019, 20:19

We rarely learn from history. Winston had us figured out when he opined that we as a Nation would do the right thing after we tried every other way first. (Or words to that effect.)

racedo

14th Dec 2019, 20:50

We rarely learn from history. Winston had us figured out when he opined that we as a Nation would do the right thing after we tried every other way first. (Or words to that effect.)

Yup

A conversation I had late on Thursday night in a hotel when watching the UK election exit polls come in. 4 of us sitting around seeing it. Opinion shared by one guy and agreed by us all was that Majority of politicians UK go to same type of University (17% of MPs went to Oxford/Cambridge), others will be similar. Most senior ministers will fall into that. Many will have either worked as an assistant (intern) with MP / Union / Think tank / Local councillor and will not have had a proper job where real decisions and real life needs to be experienced.

The similar background means that they think like each other, act like each other and there is no real difference in mentality. US Congress is similar in certain ways.

The end result is you end up with politicians who are more similar than they are different and make the same decisions because they know no difference.

As they divorced from the people they don't understand what really impacts those who vote and think someone else can pay for it.

Most revolutions start because people get tired of paying too much for something, this is the trigger point, "No taxation witho representation", the more you get like that the more the end result ends up similar to the Boston Tea Party.

gums

15th Dec 2019, 01:25

Salute!

Sometimes not sure where race is coming from , but every now and then a blind squirrel will find an acorn.

The end result is you end up with politicians who are more similar than they are different and make the same decisions because they know no difference.
As they divorced from the people they don't understand what really impacts those who vote and think someone else can pay for it.

Race has cracked the code that resulted in the U.S. latest president. The votes came from those that contributed the most to the country and did not live in Silicon Valley, or south L.A. or New York City or attend Harvard. Further, they were the ones who went to war or their sons and daughters went to war. They worked and paid taxes and cared more about their families and friends than a utopian dream some politicians wish to impose upon us. Oh welll...
Gums sends...

EvaDestruction

16th Dec 2019, 12:53

I am a new guy here at PPRuNe, and the conversation here on this thread is high quality indeed!

I did my time in SEA 70 and 71, and Hugh Thompson CWO of My Lai fame was a personal hero, a brave and principled man.

As for these new Afghanistan Papers, they demonstrate at least 2 things--Americans learned precious little from the Pentagon Papers, and the government still lies as it pleases. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

T28B

17th Dec 2019, 01:07

Welcome, Eva.
Just out of curiosity, what did you fly in SEA?

EvaDestruction

17th Dec 2019, 12:32

Welcome, Eva.
Just out of curiosity, what did you fly in SEA?

UH-1H, June 70 to June 71. We were Dustoff, 57th Medical Detachment (HA) in IV Corps. US Army working off US Navy base in the Mekong Delta.

BVRAAM

17th Dec 2019, 21:05

Having spent a distressing proportion of the years since 9/11 looking down from my aircraft onto western troops engaged in a variety of ‘nation building’ projects, and occasionally unleashing a bit of ‘deconstruction’ to try to get them out of trouble, I have come to the following views:

1) Military forces whose top two priorities are elimination of own losses and avoidance of civilian casualties are so compromised in their ability to achieve goals that their presence probably does more harm than good;

2) Troops with ‘skin in the game’ beyond getting home (usually locals) are orders of magnitude more effective than their equipment and training would suggest. They are fighting for their own futures and families, they have a time horizon beyond their six-month tour, and therefore they have a different basis on which to judge risk and ethics.

3) Providing just enough outside assistance to keep the ‘good guys’ in the battle, but not enough to help them win the war, starts out looking like a measured and ethical choice but eventually ends up with the outsider sharing moral responsibility with the ‘bad guys’ for all of the additional suffering inflicted on innocent civilians by perpetual conflict.

There is very often no ‘correct’ answer to an ethical problem, and the best (or least worst) answer is different for people of different cultural heritage. And I would observe that the law of armed conflict has an ethical foundation which is foreign to a large proportion of the world’s population. Anyone who sees these things in black and white needs to learn a bit of grey-shade perception.

Perhaps I am just guilty of the superiority complex, playing the "must be better" card.

Honestly, I view organisations like Daesh (which have now established themselves in Afghanistan) to be of a lower status than vermin - because even vermin has a place within nature.
They're sub-human and deserve every kinetic action against them - I don't take kindly to armed thugs with primitive mindsets shooting up entire villages, raping women and children after murdering their husbands and fathers right before their eyes, beheading hostages in front of the camera or even burning downed pilots to death.
I justify each strike against them as one more step to saving the innocent, who are victims of their barbaric practises.

However, I don't want our country to go after them without doing everything it can to avoid civilian deaths - because then we are in danger of becoming them, and they will use that to radicalise more people. That just doesn't sit well with me.

gums

17th Dec 2019, 21:48

Salute!

Hey Eva !
Run into one of the Novosel family down in IV Corps?
They know what it is like to be shot at, and you prolly do as well.

Gums sends...

EvaDestruction

19th Dec 2019, 14:22

Salute!

Hey Eva !
Run into one of the Novosel family down in IV Corps?
They know what it is like to be shot at, and you prolly do as well.

Gums sends...

You bet! Mike and I were there at the same time and were good friends. I think of him every time I think of Green Cove Springs FL by Jacksonville.

I never had the pleasure of meeting his father, CMH winner.

racedo

20th Dec 2019, 10:04

Perhaps I am just guilty of the superiority complex, playing the "must be better" card.

Honestly, I view organisations like Daesh (which have now established themselves in Afghanistan) to be of a lower status than vermin - because even vermin has a place within nature.
They're sub-human and deserve every kinetic action against them - I don't take kindly to armed thugs with primitive mindsets shooting up entire villages, raping women and children after murdering their husbands and fathers right before their eyes, beheading hostages in front of the camera or even burning downed pilots to death.
I justify each strike against them as one more step to saving the innocent, who are victims of their barbaric practises.

However, I don't want our country to go after them without doing everything it can to avoid civilian deaths - because then we are in danger of becoming them, and they will use that to radicalise more people. That just doesn't sit well with me.

Daesh didn't move to Afghanistan without lots of logistics support........ it wasn't a couple of guys riding camels from Syria to Afghanistan.
There is clearly lots of background support from various countries to them and has been for years.
Strange than with all the "intelligence" agencies working on it they just never seem to be able to track them down, unless of course they are doing the supporting.

I don't take kindly to armed thugs with primitive mindsets shooting up entire villages, raping women and children after murdering their husbands and fathers right before their eyes, beheading hostages in front of the camera or even burning downed pilots to death.

If your family are at a wedding / family gathering of one of their loved ones and a missile from an Aircraft wipes them out. Please explain how better are the people who did that from Daesh.

Explain it to the family members, friends and relatives of the people concerned that "Oops we made a mistake" but 30 of your relatives, friends, villagers are scattered over a huge area in pieces with many more injured. Something similar in a western country will get thousands of lines of newsprint and hours on TV, in Afghanistan / Iraq etc it gets 10 lines and minutes in the media and "we will do better next time".

Best way to prevent it happening is to stop interfering in other countries and stop the supply of money / weapons. But there is too much money to be made from it so 1000 bodies whether they be US/UK/Locals is deemed a price worth paying so someone can be a little bit richer.

pr00ne

20th Dec 2019, 12:43

racedo.

Easy.

INTENT.

BVRAAM

20th Dec 2019, 14:17

Pr00ne got there before me.

It's reasonable to assume nobody with an ambition to fly fast jets, bases that on the desire to deliberately kill civilians if they made it. I certainly don't and I don't think the current men and women on the combat air frontline do, either.

Daesh intend to kill innocents - they believe to do so, forces their religious message. Fighter Pilots, Bomber Pilots and UAV Operators do not.

gums

20th Dec 2019, 18:41

Salute!

Thanks "Proone" and BVR

I never joined up to go to war, although I knew that it was a possibility sometime down the road. Things were very calm in the late 50's and early 60's. It was the golden age of fighters, with new ones coming along almost monthly. If you wanted to go into space in those days you had to be a fighter pilot/test pilot. So even if I never set foot on Mars, I could fly some neat jets and " done a hundred things You have not dreamed of ......where never lark, or even eagle, flew". So that lasted for me until late 1967, and duty called.

I know and flew with and instructed many Vee. They knew their country leadership had questionable political ethics and such, but they did not want the Northerners to run things. The folks in the 'stans and their fanatics and such are not like that. That damned religion overrides the politics, economics and basic human dignity. And I don't have the slightest thot about how to face that with military action.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For fear of fire, enemy fire that is, read the MoH citation for Mike Novosel. His son flew with Eva here, and that guy, Mike Sr, was a piece of work. As far as anyone can tell, the father and son were the only two combat pilots that ever flew together in a unit. In fact, one rescued the other one day and a few weeks later they reversed roles. Wow!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
@ Eva....
My son and I had the pleasure of talking with Mike Senior for about two hours on the afternoon that Junior opened his "Flightline Bar and Grill". My God, the guy flew B-29's. Various reasons he missed out on Korea, but wanted to do something helpful during the mid-sixties so volunteered to be a helo IP up at Ft Rucker ( close to here in the Panhandle). U.S. Army took him in, but then sent him to IV Corps, South VietNam as Dust Off.
Later that night we attended the grand opening of their dive and my son and his wife and I sat across the table from Mike Sr and Bud Day - two MoH winners! Lottsa history here in the Panhandle besides the training of the Doolittle Raiders and the Son Tay raid.

Gums sends...