America's Dumbest War Ever
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,046
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Personally looking at it, but you cannot win a war by sitting in little outposts and flying over the country, you need to take and hold large areas of the country, and for that you need the troops on the ground in sufficient quantities to do it, without it you are forced to sit in little fortified positions whilst controlling nothing outside your area...
It's alright fighting a smart war if the other side is too, but they are not playing by our rules...
When you have a convoy of vehicles that have cost £1,0000,000's to produce moving along a road at walking pace while a man on foot walks in front sweeping for a £20 bomb, you are on a hiding to nothing.. Lack of manpower and a firm hold on the ground leaves you vulnerable to that.
I see we have just bought 325 foxhound vehicles at a cost of £300,000,000, call me old fashioned, but when you are throwing that type of money at protecting yourselves against a man with a RPG or AK47 or a DIY bomb costing peanuts, you are soon into a financial meltdown and in an non winnable situation. Surely if you up armour vehicles, the simple answer to that is to plant bigger mines..
Prod a rattlesnake in it's hole and it will bite back..
Probably all totally wrong, but that's how I see things as a Joe Public.
.
It's alright fighting a smart war if the other side is too, but they are not playing by our rules...
When you have a convoy of vehicles that have cost £1,0000,000's to produce moving along a road at walking pace while a man on foot walks in front sweeping for a £20 bomb, you are on a hiding to nothing.. Lack of manpower and a firm hold on the ground leaves you vulnerable to that.
I see we have just bought 325 foxhound vehicles at a cost of £300,000,000, call me old fashioned, but when you are throwing that type of money at protecting yourselves against a man with a RPG or AK47 or a DIY bomb costing peanuts, you are soon into a financial meltdown and in an non winnable situation. Surely if you up armour vehicles, the simple answer to that is to plant bigger mines..
Prod a rattlesnake in it's hole and it will bite back..
Probably all totally wrong, but that's how I see things as a Joe Public.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 1st Oct 2012 at 01:46.
Hey! Remember! God was on our side in 1812......that is why the Tornado hit DC and killed more Redcoats than our Army did!
Last edited by SASless; 1st Oct 2012 at 02:04.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the @holes who started this not read any history of Afghanistan?
Even the Russians who were right on the doorstep with a huge array of equipment and personnel had to admit defeat.
Did the Pentagon think that superior training and electronics were going to make a difference?
As Kipling said -
"A scrimmage in a Border Station --
A canter down some dark defile --
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail --
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow
Strike hard who cares -- shoot straight who can --
The odds are on the cheaper man."
Even the Russians who were right on the doorstep with a huge array of equipment and personnel had to admit defeat.
Did the Pentagon think that superior training and electronics were going to make a difference?
As Kipling said -
"A scrimmage in a Border Station --
A canter down some dark defile --
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail --
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow
Strike hard who cares -- shoot straight who can --
The odds are on the cheaper man."
Last edited by A A Gruntpuddock; 1st Oct 2012 at 02:52.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manuka
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the @holes who started this not read any history of Afghanistan?
As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, at least four years ago "We cannot kill our way to victory"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nutloose, quite right. We managed in Malaya which of course is minute compared with AFG albeit jungle is probably worse than desert.
The method there was to separate terrorists from populace but the key was the populace wanted to be free from the terrorists. Also there was nowhere near the proliferation of weapons.
I would not be surprised if the number of AK47s outnumbers the population. While a 'friendly' villager may have an AK47 and fire off hundreds of rounds at a wedding party you remain on a hiding to nothing.
If 10 years ago there had been a serious gun collection programme and an attempt at border controls - but pie in the sky. If 30 years ago the likes of Sandy Gaul could walk in (OK not a walk in the park) with Russian forces trying to keep them out, the end game was obvious even then.
The method there was to separate terrorists from populace but the key was the populace wanted to be free from the terrorists. Also there was nowhere near the proliferation of weapons.
I would not be surprised if the number of AK47s outnumbers the population. While a 'friendly' villager may have an AK47 and fire off hundreds of rounds at a wedding party you remain on a hiding to nothing.
If 10 years ago there had been a serious gun collection programme and an attempt at border controls - but pie in the sky. If 30 years ago the likes of Sandy Gaul could walk in (OK not a walk in the park) with Russian forces trying to keep them out, the end game was obvious even then.
My Beef is less with the folks that started it....as you remember we had rather good success in the first year....but since then we have gone on to squander lives and resources and are still doing so with an eye to staying over two years longer yet.
If our Senior Military leadership have known it is a lost cause....why have they not stood up to the politicians and forced a change in policy/strategy?
We marked the loss of over 2,000 lives in Country recently.....how many more are we going to throw away before we leave.....and leave we shall......just Ten Years too late!
If our Senior Military leadership have known it is a lost cause....why have they not stood up to the politicians and forced a change in policy/strategy?
We marked the loss of over 2,000 lives in Country recently.....how many more are we going to throw away before we leave.....and leave we shall......just Ten Years too late!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Iraq 2, it was a BS war from the off.
Soldiers pay the ultimate price, but most of them believe the BS reasons for the war, they really believe they are defending their own country by invading another.
It must be a self defence mechanism to justify their own participation and willingness to be conned and have your life put at risk for lies.
Soldiers pay the ultimate price, but most of them believe the BS reasons for the war, they really believe they are defending their own country by invading another.
It must be a self defence mechanism to justify their own participation and willingness to be conned and have your life put at risk for lies.
Anyone remember what our original aims were back in 2001? I recall they were something to do with clearing AQ/the Taleban from the country and installing a stable pro-Western administration in their place. We have certainly crushed AQ in the country and done a pretty job of corralling the Taleban, although this has been complicated by the fact that they are indigenous (they can blend in instantly at the drop of a weapon). The Afghan government although by no means perfect is far better supported and resourced than anything that has gone before. As such I reckon we've gone a long way to achieving these aims.
Did anyone really think when we went in that we were going to fix this country and transform it into a beacon democracy? It was just never going to happen. The country has so little going for it - landlocked in a really crap neighbourhood, no natural resources of any note, an ill-educated and backward populace who seem determined to resist any attempts to bring them into the modern age. The sooner we get out the better.
Did anyone really think when we went in that we were going to fix this country and transform it into a beacon democracy? It was just never going to happen. The country has so little going for it - landlocked in a really crap neighbourhood, no natural resources of any note, an ill-educated and backward populace who seem determined to resist any attempts to bring them into the modern age. The sooner we get out the better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting...three pages on the subject from well-educated military sorts who night be expected to have a little strategic nous, and barely a mention of the real problem.
I'm sure all the relevant goverments would love nothing better that to haul tail and get the hell out of Dodge, but there is a wee problem with that.
Let the Taliban/any-islamic-militant-group-you-care-to-mention, consolidate power in Afghanistan and how long before they start to consolidate power in the wee country next door. You know the one I mean...the one with all the nukes.
I guess we will leave when we are one hundred percent sure we can keep the Taliban etc bottled up, cordoned off, destablised whatever.
It's not about nation building (keep that for joe public).
It's about managing the global threat of WMD armed jihadists.
I'm sure all the relevant goverments would love nothing better that to haul tail and get the hell out of Dodge, but there is a wee problem with that.
Let the Taliban/any-islamic-militant-group-you-care-to-mention, consolidate power in Afghanistan and how long before they start to consolidate power in the wee country next door. You know the one I mean...the one with all the nukes.
I guess we will leave when we are one hundred percent sure we can keep the Taliban etc bottled up, cordoned off, destablised whatever.
It's not about nation building (keep that for joe public).
It's about managing the global threat of WMD armed jihadists.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 1st Oct 2012 at 21:36.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing...
If you want to use the Vietnam context, then at least look at the big picture.
Vietnam, win, lose or draw, was one of the battlegrounds (and only one) where Uncle Sam chose to take on the ideology of communism....and in time that ideoligical battle was convincingly won, although remmants drag on.
Currently the "free thinking world" (for want of a better expression) is facing a fundamentalist threat from religious extremism...and not just from the islamic world. So there are some aspects which are similar, but historically this battle is much older...back to the crusades at least.
If you want to use the Vietnam context, then at least look at the big picture.
Vietnam, win, lose or draw, was one of the battlegrounds (and only one) where Uncle Sam chose to take on the ideology of communism....and in time that ideoligical battle was convincingly won, although remmants drag on.
Currently the "free thinking world" (for want of a better expression) is facing a fundamentalist threat from religious extremism...and not just from the islamic world. So there are some aspects which are similar, but historically this battle is much older...back to the crusades at least.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 2nd Oct 2012 at 06:51.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOFO, I am usually in agreement with your views but not here.
That is what we did in Germany after the second war. In Afghanistan no one has ever managed bottle anything up and to 100% is a pure pipe dream, especially as we have already declared an end date but we have had no period of stability from which that conclusion could be drawn.
Dead_Pan talks of better supported and resourced, yes, by us while we remain there. As for resources they do a pretty good job of destroying those resources if they can.
Do we honestly believe that we will leave a stable Government in control of the whole country?
one hundred percent sure we can keep the Taliban etc bottled up, cordoned off, destablised whatever
Dead_Pan talks of better supported and resourced, yes, by us while we remain there. As for resources they do a pretty good job of destroying those resources if they can.
Do we honestly believe that we will leave a stable Government in control of the whole country?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN,
I agree...no chance.
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood me. What we want to leave behind is a scenario where the Taliban and their ilk cannot easily regain power. I doubt it will be because of strong and stable democracy (no harm in hoping though), more likely a combination of empowering rival factions and leaving behind the machinery to be able to:
a. Monitor.
b. Interdict.
Bottom line...we cannot just leave, not because the place is a worthless hell hole, but because it is a worthless hell hole next door to the mother of all global threats.
Do we honestly believe that we will leave a stable Government in control of the
whole country?
whole country?
I agree...no chance.
I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood me. What we want to leave behind is a scenario where the Taliban and their ilk cannot easily regain power. I doubt it will be because of strong and stable democracy (no harm in hoping though), more likely a combination of empowering rival factions and leaving behind the machinery to be able to:
a. Monitor.
b. Interdict.
Bottom line...we cannot just leave, not because the place is a worthless hell hole, but because it is a worthless hell hole next door to the mother of all global threats.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ah.
Now I was also uncertain which you meant in your previous post about a wee country.
I presume you don't mean the one with nukes but the one trying to get nukes.
Now I was also uncertain which you meant in your previous post about a wee country.
I presume you don't mean the one with nukes but the one trying to get nukes.
33 NATO Troops murdered by Afghans in Blue on Green attacks in Afghanistan and Senior American Military leaders including General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, blame our Soldiers for the attacks.
Granted the Taliban have claimed responsibility for many of the attacks but dickheads like Dempsey worry about Political Correctness, protecting the Army's Diversity Program, and not admitting the truth that Aghan forces have been successfully infiltrated by the Taliban and perhaps Al Qaeda members.
We hear all about our needing to learn how to be culturally sensitive.....why do we not hear the same about the Afghans in their dealings with us. Isn't this tolerance thhing a two way street?
Oh....yes....I forget.....our Troops have to learn to be as loving of all things Islamic as our Dear Leader Obama.
Muslims Murder Our Troops and Pathetic Pentagon Blames Us
Granted the Taliban have claimed responsibility for many of the attacks but dickheads like Dempsey worry about Political Correctness, protecting the Army's Diversity Program, and not admitting the truth that Aghan forces have been successfully infiltrated by the Taliban and perhaps Al Qaeda members.
We hear all about our needing to learn how to be culturally sensitive.....why do we not hear the same about the Afghans in their dealings with us. Isn't this tolerance thhing a two way street?
Oh....yes....I forget.....our Troops have to learn to be as loving of all things Islamic as our Dear Leader Obama.
Muslims Murder Our Troops and Pathetic Pentagon Blames Us
Last edited by SASless; 2nd Oct 2012 at 14:39.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read that article.
This one from the list got me.
"Avoid offering and accepting things with the left hand, which in Islam is reserved for bodily hygiene and considered unclean."
So how do you "untrain" a million troops who instinctively will hold onto the rifle pistol grip with the right hand to grab or take something with the left hand, that way always being ready. It's instinctive and would be hard to "un do".
But do agree that the senior leadership in the US, military and civilian is so PC.
.
This one from the list got me.
"Avoid offering and accepting things with the left hand, which in Islam is reserved for bodily hygiene and considered unclean."
So how do you "untrain" a million troops who instinctively will hold onto the rifle pistol grip with the right hand to grab or take something with the left hand, that way always being ready. It's instinctive and would be hard to "un do".
But do agree that the senior leadership in the US, military and civilian is so PC.
.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,046
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
Even the UK isn't immune to being PC, remember the one that came out forbidding the carrying of the SLR on ones hip as the stance of a raised weapon was deemed to be aggressive posture, you then had to carry the damn thing Barrel facing down which was deemed to be a submissive posture.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN
I meant Pakistan. If you want the bejeessuus scared out of you read this and imagine that little lot under Taliban control
Pakistan
That's why we ain't leaving town until the job is done.
No matter how much it hurts.
I meant Pakistan. If you want the bejeessuus scared out of you read this and imagine that little lot under Taliban control
Pakistan
That's why we ain't leaving town until the job is done.
No matter how much it hurts.