Afghanistan and released American documents
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Afghanistan and released American documents
Uncomfortable reading indeed. Sadly, we are no better.
The 'whitewash theory' (and false news) that protects our VSOs and politicians alike has been in existence for years - Remember, we ran a huge empire on false news for centuries.
As for learning lessons?. Forget it! Just before I left, we were told that in contentious report writing, lessons were no longer to be learned, merely 'identified' .
Just my my personal opinion, of course.
The 'whitewash theory' (and false news) that protects our VSOs and politicians alike has been in existence for years - Remember, we ran a huge empire on false news for centuries.
As for learning lessons?. Forget it! Just before I left, we were told that in contentious report writing, lessons were no longer to be learned, merely 'identified' .
Just my my personal opinion, of course.
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.
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.
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. .
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by BVRAAM; 11th Dec 2019 at 16:15.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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....
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
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.
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.