Afghanistan - A Lost Cause?

benway

Interesting interview in today's Guardian with Daniel Davis, a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army who blew the whistle on Army spin, putting the view that the war is not only unwinnable, but has probably already been lost:

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by US military leaders about conditions on the ground....

What I saw first hand in virtually every circumstance was a barely functioning organisation often co-operating with the insurgent enemy ...

... insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a US or International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) base.

• US and ISAF won every major tactical clash, but lost much of the country;

• ISAF denied the scale of the insurgency and the seriousness of its rise. Issued intelligence and other reports claiming success that did not exist;

• The US and ISAF remained kinetic through 2009; the insurgent fought a battle of influence over the population and political attrition to drive out the US and ISAF from the start;

• In June 2010, the Acting Minister of Interior told the press that only 9 of Afghanistan's 364 districts were considered safe;

• No ISAF nation provides meaningful transparency and reporting to its legislature and people;

Davis' full report here.

Seeing as the wars have cost $3.7 trillion, at the very least, don't seem likely to produce any significant return on investment any time soon, and have coincided with an almost unprecedented economic crisis for the United States, is it fair to say that they've fallen into the same trap the Soviets did?

Osama Bin Laden, a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war, and beneficiary of US aid at the time, avowedly set out to bleed the Great Satan, is it time to admit that he may have won?

I thought at the time that a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan could only end in disaster, and it gives me no pleasure to be vindicated on this. It is a timely reminder of the Bush administration's, and the Republican party's legacy to the United States.

So, what now? Admit that it's this generation's Vietnam, accept America's chastened role in world politics, acknowledge the limits of the projection of military power in the achievement of policy goals, and move to address more pressing domestic concerns? Or double down and move against Iran, risking total bankruptcy for a slim chance of regional domination?

Sand

The US and ISAF remained kinetic through 2009; the insurgent fought a battle of influence over the population and political attrition to drive out the US and ISAF from the start;

Just a minor point here - but the widespread declarations of imminent departure and withdrawals called for by political necessities in the US tend to signal to the population in Afghanistan that they need to prioritize their alliances with whatever group is left standing in the aftermath of US departure.

The insurgents didn't fight a battle of influence over the population (disfiguring women by cutting off their ears and noses isn't exactly soft power projection) but with US leaders queuing up to promise how quickly they'd evacuate Afghanistan if elected the Afghans are left with only one option - find some accommodation with the insurgents so they avoid reprisals in the future.

Jonny7

As unbalanced as Kharzai has become, he did make a strong point, that if he had had the resources which were squandered on Iraq - Afghanistan would be a much better place today - the country was effectively, and fatally, abandoned during a very crucial period

Since then it's really just been damage limitation and a scramble to try and give the Afghans the tools to mold some sort of functioning society. Some regions are worse than others.

Privately, many top brass and politicians have echoed this over the years, however for obvious reasons they have to stay "positive" in the public arena.

Mr.Micro

Jonny7 wrote: »

As unbalanced as Kharzai has become, he did make a strong point, that if he had had the resources which were squandered on Iraq - Afghanistan would be a much better place today - the country was effectively, and fatally, abandoned during a very crucial period

Since then it's really just been damage limitation and a scramble to try and give the Afghans the tools to mold some sort of functioning society. Some regions are worse than others.

Privately, many top brass and politicians have echoed this over the years, however for obvious reasons they have to stay "positive" in the public arena.

What made the US and the Brits think that they could tame Afghanistan? When they leave, the Taleban will no doubt return to turn the clock back a couple of centuries.

Slydice

Was afghanistan really a cause? Wasn't it really a knee-jerk reaction and war excuse all wrapped into one?

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What made the US and the Brits think that they could tame Afghanistan? When they leave, the Taleban will no doubt return to turn the clock back a couple of centuries.

Afghanistan was largely "operation kick-ass for 911" but there was an intention to somehow rebuild the country. The administration had zero idea how to do it though, so despite some progress it quickly became clear it simply wasn't a priority. No idea if Afghanistan can ever be tamed, but it's definitely going to spend a long time in the dark ages.

AlekSmart

Slydice wrote: »

Was afghanistan really a cause? Wasn't it really a knee-jerk reaction and war excuse all wrapped into one?

History,to the average American,rarely extends back beyond 100 years.

It's worth noting that Their Imperial Majesties various Governments have spent a very great deal of time,energy and money attempting to tame Afghanistan and it's tribes....with little success...

Quite a good article here from 2009.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092303680.html

They'll never return a Conservative MP,that's for sure !

benway

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's worth noting that Their Imperial Majesties various Governments have spent a very great deal of time,energy and money attempting to tame Afghanistan and it's tribes....with little success...

It's just where empires go to die ... they should rename it Hubris.

EWQuinn

"History,to the average American,rarely extends back beyond 100 years."

You're giving us a lot of credit there Alek. Given what is taught in our schools, if that statement is true we should be thankful.

If the mission were to prevent Afghan from hosting an effective base of operations against the west, and maintaining a strong presence there in some form of accomodation with the tribes, it might be achievable. If the mission is to somehow "transform" the place, it gets much tougher. Neither has any chance when your Commander in Chief says your packing it all up in a year. Both Afghan and Iraq, if done correctly could be / could have been excellent positioning to help destabilize Iran and keep tabs on Paki and the ISI etc.

While a poor analogy I know, nevertheless in WWII we won the wars before we transformed and rebuilt the enemy. But regardless of the endeavor, if we can't define "winning", we're off course from the get go. When it comes to Iraq, I still believe we had a much better chance to change things meaningfully back in 1991, but instead we showed the victims in the region they could not trust us to follow through.

benway

EWQuinn wrote: »

transformed and rebuilt the enemy.

That's a really interesting way of putting it. Seems like an impossible task, unless you utterly destroy them to rebuild them?

Plugging Adam Curtis again, but he really has a grip on that side of things, the stuff on his blog about Afghanistan is really, really good, for those who have the patience - some of the videos and music won't play with out a UK proxy though. A long and strange relationship between the Afghans and the West, taking in hippies, Italian conceptual artists, Afghan prog rock, Sheikhs, anthropologists, Intercontinental hotels, Marxists, Neocons, Oliver North, and a marmot.

Afghanistan didn't just defeat the Soviet army. It reached out and corrupted and corroded the Soviet Union's faith in itself. Above all it destroyed what was left of the dream that communism was the future universal model for the world.

The ones featuring unedited rushes of film shot in Afghanistan are particularly good, including an assassination attempt on Karzai, as is this one, about private security firms and their dealings with local warlords, and this one, about military anthropologists.

The idea is simple. Instead of concentrating only on fighting on the "physical terrain" - the cities, deserts and mountains of Afghanistan - the aim is get inside the minds of the Afghan people - the "human terrain" - to find out how they see the world, how they think and feel. And then, with that knowledge, to exploit and control this "human terrain" by engineering new ways of thinking inside the minds of the Afghan people.

Particularly like this quote from a 60s British journalist.

While the Afghan climate is clear, brisk and extreme, the political atmosphere is blurred, inconstant and soggy.

Afghanistan is like the fairy wood in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and many a confident diplomat, striding briskly into its groves has come out with a donkey's head.

'Don't be alarmed my dear fellow', the Afghans will tell you, 'we know just what we are doing'.

Son Of A Vidic

Slydice wrote: »

Was afghanistan really a cause? Wasn't it really a knee-jerk reaction and war excuse all wrapped into one?

That would pretty much sum it up alright.


But regarding it being a lost cost? Kharzai is the figurehead of a government which remains corrupt to the core. The bribes and the endemic corruption resuscitated the Taliban and has presented them as a unified force which opposes the many fiefdoms. Couple this with flawed American strategy and a trigger happy USAF and thus we now have an unwinnable war.

benway

Jonny7 wrote: »

As unbalanced as Kharzai has become, he did make a strong point, that if he had had the resources which were squandered on Iraq - Afghanistan would be a much better place today - the country was effectively, and fatally, abandoned during a very crucial period

Which is a fair point, but Karzai would say that - there's a great quote and video interview with him on this post, which also puts the view that the Americans were manipulated by the Afghans into taking sides in their own internal conflicts, that many of the USAF atrocities, without absolving the Americans of blame, came down to misinformation by collaborators in pursuance of taking out their own rivals:

He is incredibly direct and open to the elders. The American troops are like a powerful drug, he says, that cures a disease. It had bad side effects. But we can't get rid of them - because of all the money they are pouring into our country.

Border-Rat

Afghanistan was a lost cause from day one. If you want to get technical it was 'lost' in 07/08. The Afghans take their time with this type of thing. 2001/2002 knocked them for six. As is usual with the Afghans kicking out leftist monsters, they allow the invaders to come in then then spend a good amount of time, years even, watching and planning their war. The Afghans didn't really get started untill 2006, by 2009 they had strategically won.

I suspect drugs and political gain (I.e. withdrawing is an election vehicle) are reasons for their holding on to a paltry few square miles. Who know how long that'll last though, the Afghan spring offensive has began.

benway

Border-Rat wrote: »

As is usual with the Afghans kicking out leftist monsters, they allow the invaders to come in then then spend a good amount of time, years even, watching and planning their war.

Wait ... the US and the British ... and the Soviets, for that matter ... are/were leftist?

I agree with all of the rest of it, though. I would say that US military technology and tactics are sufficiently advanced that they won't allow themselves to be seen to be running away with their tails between their legs, helicopters taking diplomats and collaborators off the top of the Kabul embassy, but the net effect is pretty much the same.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Afghanistan was a lost cause from day one. If you want to get technical it was 'lost' in 07/08. The Afghans take their time with this type of thing. 2001/2002 knocked them for six. As is usual with the Afghans kicking out leftist monsters, they allow the invaders to come in then then spend a good amount of time, years even, watching and planning their war. The Afghans didn't really get started untill 2006, by 2009 they had strategically won.

I suspect drugs and political gain (I.e. withdrawing is an election vehicle) are reasons for their holding on to a paltry few square miles. Who know how long that'll last though, the Afghan spring offensive has began.

Woah, the Afghan people are doing nothing but suffering and being blown up. The war is with the Taliban, who are a bunch of murdering religious fanatics.

Mr.Micro

I will just amend your quote, if I may, as religious and murdering do not go together.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Woah, the Afghan people are doing nothing but suffering and being blown up. The war is with the Taliban, who are a bunch of murdering religious fanatics.

Poccington

Border-Rat wrote: »

Afghanistan was a lost cause from day one. If you want to get technical it was 'lost' in 07/08. The Afghans take their time with this type of thing. 2001/2002 knocked them for six. As is usual with the Afghans kicking out leftist monsters, they allow the invaders to come in then then spend a good amount of time, years even, watching and planning their war. The Afghans didn't really get started untill 2006, by 2009 they had strategically won.

I suspect drugs and political gain (I.e. withdrawing is an election vehicle) are reasons for their holding on to a paltry few square miles. Who know how long that'll last though, the Afghan spring offensive has began.

It was far from a lost cause from day one. During the initial invasion and immediate aftermath, US and Coalition SOF had decimated the Taliban and AQ, while working with the Afghan's.

The big mistake came when they turned A'Stan over to conventional forces.

AbusesToilets

Poccington wrote: »

It was far from a lost cause from day one. During the initial invasion and immediate aftermath, US and Coalition SOF had decimated the Taliban and AQ, while working with the Afghan's.

The big mistake came when they turned A'Stan over to conventional forces.

The problem in Afghanistan isn't a military one, it's a political/ social one. COIN requires military action to create a breathing space for social and political solutions to take effect. That requires the government to be seen as legitimate and offering a better quality of life than the opposition. This is not the case in Afghanistan and has been a consistent failure over the last 10 years. Militarily NATO has wiped the floor with the insurgents time and time again, and could continue to do so for as long as they are required too. There just isn't the capability in the government to provide the necessary services to the Afghan populace. And sadly, for all the effort expended by NATO and Afghans over the last decade, I don't think that the Afghan government is likely to achieve that level of capability anytime soon.

I agree with you in respects to the SOF versus conventional forces. I think their deployment signaled a change in focus, for the worse, to nation building with a military perspective. The situation wasn't helped by the fact that, IMO, Afghanistan was an "emotional" war for the USA, in that the events that precipitated it led to the USA perhaps viewing it differently than they would have otherwise and having a feeling that they had to go beyond the initial objective of removing AQ from the country.

That being said I think that one of the main reasons that the USA/ NATO is still involved in Afghanistan is, that having become engaged in a war there, they have involved Pakistan in the conflict and led to a great increase in fundamentalism in that country. This has destabilized Pakistan, to the point of near collapse perhaps. Given their nuclear arsenal and the already volatile atmosphere in the region, this means they have to be concerned about the possibility of cross border activity of fundamentalists and the collapse of the state, maybe even both states. Having taken on the problems of Afghanistan, they have also, in a sense, "bought" and exacerbated Pakistan's problems as well.

karma_

Poccington wrote: »

It was far from a lost cause from day one. During the initial invasion and immediate aftermath, US and Coalition SOF had decimated the Taliban and AQ, while working with the Afghan's.

The big mistake came when they turned A'Stan over to conventional forces.

It was in fact doomed from the moment the first NATO soldier stepped foot on the soil there. How do we know this? Look at the history of military folly into Afghanistan, not a single invader has successful managed to conquer it - even Alexander the Great had this to say - "easy to march into, hard to march out of."

The only success any of the invaders had was temporary, usually accompanied by great destruction and slaughter.

cyberhog

NATO 'crawling' to Russia/China for funding support.

BRUSSELS, April 19 (Reuters) - The head of NATO called on China and Russia on Thursday to help fund Afghan security after 2014, as the alliance tries to rally contributions from a wider range of sources before most foreign combat troops pull out of Afghanistan.

NATO estimates that the annual cost of maintaining Afghan security forces will be some $4 billion, and the United States is hoping for contributions worth 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) from other NATO allies and partners. But so far only Britain has publicly pledged an actual amount of cash, $110 million a year.

"We would welcome financial contributions from Russia, China and other countries to ensure a strong sustainable Afghan security force beyond 2014," S ecretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference in Brussels

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/nato-russia-idUSL6E8FJFUO20120419

troposphere

Russia 'crawling' to NATO to get them to stay in Afghanistan by giving them use of a transit hub on Russian territory.

Sponge Bob

Looking more an inevitable helicopter shuttle from the roof of the embassy in Kabul.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19325354

Bagram is bloody large and it would not be easy to hit a particular plane from outside the base.

Afghan rocket attack damages US army chief plane
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey (C) arrives at the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul on August 20, 2012 Gen Dempsey has now left Afghanistan on another plane

An insurgent rocket attack on a US air base in Afghanistan has damaged the plane of America's top military officer while he was on a visit there.

Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was not near the plane at the time but two US maintenance crew were slightly injured.

The attack happened late on Monday night at the US air base in Bagram.

He was in Afghanistan to discuss a growing number of attacks against Nato soldiers by Afghan security personnel.

On which latter point.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/another_isaf_soldier.php

August 19, 2012

A member of the International Security Assistance Force was shot and killed in southern Afghanistan today when a man in an Afghan police uniform turned his weapon on a group of ISAF soldiers, ISAF stated in a press release. The release did not identify the nationality of the dead ISAF soldier, and did not specify whether other troops were injured in the attack.

There has been an extraordinary spike in green-on-blue attacks recently; they now account for over 13% of ISAF casualties this year. Today's attack is the eighth such attack on ISAF personnel in the past two weeks; 11 soldiers have been killed in the eight attacks.

The US is becoming increasingly concerned about the rise in attacks by Afghan forces against their Coalition colleagues, and is pressing the Afghan government to adopt more stringent vetting measures for recruits to Afghan forces, according to Reuters. The US military also issued a directive this week to all Coalition troops instructing them to carry a loaded weapon at all times.

CatFromHue

The parallels between America in Afghanistan and America in Vietnam are very strong.

Manic Moran

What makes you think it was aimed at that specific aircraft?

Fratton Fred

CatFromHue wrote: »

The parallels between America in Afghanistan and America in Vietnam are very strong.

in what way?

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

There are similarities for sure, but most importantly in the only way that ultimately matters, the US/NATO are going to lose that war. Of course when they eventually leave they will proclaim victory, but that will have little bearing on the reality of the situation.

getzls

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I will just amend your quote, if I may, as religious and murdering do not go together.

You do have to remember, The Border Rat is a fan of murdering, ref. his support of the I.R.A.

Apart from that. The U.K. will leave there in 2014,so they say. It maybe will need to stay on untill 2016, and i think the U.K. people will support that decision if it comes to that. Will the Afgan Goverment be ready to go it alone by then, doubt it.

Border-Rat

Poccington wrote: »

It was far from a lost cause from day one. During the initial invasion and immediate aftermath, US and Coalition SOF had decimated the Taliban and AQ, while working with the Afghan's.

This is irrelevant. It was a lost cause from day one as the intentions of the Afghans was to resist in an unconventional manner.

The big mistake came when they turned A'Stan over to conventional forces.

As opposed to what?

Border-Rat

getzls wrote: »

You do have to remember, The Border Rat is a fan of murdering, ref. his support of the I.R.A.

This is slander. I'd hope the moderators of this forum take action.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

There are similarities for sure, but most importantly in the only way that ultimately matters, the US/NATO are going to lose that war. Of course when they eventually leave they will proclaim victory, but that will have little bearing on the reality of the situation.

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

Border-Rat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

The Taliban make up only 2 of the over 90 different factions killing anglo-American forces. Most fighters sat on the sidelines as civilians untill the invaders started bombing weddings etc.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

The Taliban make up only 2 of the over 90 different factions killing anglo-American forces. Most fighters sat on the sidelines as civilians untill the invaders started bombing weddings etc.

Could we have a source for this?

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

It's being fought by NATO Fred.

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a UN mission, not a NATO one. ISAF was set up at the unanimous request of the security council.

What is the reality of the situation? That the people of Afghanistan want rid of the taliban?

It's being fought by NATO Fred.

Not exclusively. NATO make up a large part.of ISAF, but there are several non NATO countries involved.

CatFromHue

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

Fratton Fred

CatFromHue wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way?

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

One major difference though is the level of input from other countries.

ISAF is made up of over 42 nations and has the full backing of the UN.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

CatFromHue

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One major difference though is the level of input from other countries.

ISAF is made up of over 42 nations and has the full backing of the UN.

Just looking at Wikipedia (yeah I know!) but they list the American troop levels as 90,000 and the combined troop levels of all other countries as 39706 (I counted up the troop numbers listed). So the US has over twice the amount of troops as all the other countries combined!

Lantus

Afghanistan and is people hold a totally different value system to us and therefore our ability to understand them is compromised.

If we were to expend as much effort and money (trillions) into negotiation, problem solving, peace talks with the people of this nation then no lives would need to be lost on either side.

The army and espeically the US military has no concept or real understanding of peace. They are trained to kill under orders from their superiors. If we let people like this keep deciding the best outcome then we are doomed as a species. The ordinary soldiers have even less idea on why they are fighting being predominantly from a poor educational background. Nations have ensured that the people who pull the trigger to deliver death have not the intellect to question or query the rational decisions of what they do.

War is also incredibly profitable to many organisations and companies. The US supports a great many industries by offering financial incentive to build the weapons of war.

Until we expend serious effort to bridge the gap and understand other cultures we are doomed to create war which will become ever more savage and brutal. The justification to start wars now has become blurred to the extent that if the US was to engage in another country people would hardly bat an eyelid it has become so saturated in the news. We almost take it for granted that the US can enter any country it chooses for 'freedom' and no one can question or query or prevent that.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

CatFromHue

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Yes, Barack Obama ordered what was called "The surge" in which he deployed thousands of troops to Afghanistan. He Did this so he could keep his pre-election promise that all COMBAT troops would be withdrawn at the end of 2014

Ah right. Just looking though and was the surge in Afghanistan troop numbers mentioned as 30,000?

This still would have put US forces at a higher number (by approx 20,000) than all other nations combined.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

If anybody's interested, read a book by journalist called Johnathan Steele Called "Ghosts Of Afghanistan". Its a political book which discuses the war and why it was always doomed to fail. The author has been reporting from Afghanistan since the Russians were around in the 80s and says they are making the same vital mistakes.

The Americans have never been very good about learning from history or asking the advice of nations with experience in a military theatre (in 2001 they were on good terms with Russia) before jumping in. They didn't seem to bother learning from the Russian experience in Afghanistan any more than they did from the French experience in Vietnam.

An American friend of mine once told me that one of the things that he learned from living abroad was that there are ways to do things that work well and are not American, or even better than the American way of doing them. He felt that had he never left America, he'd never have realised this as the mentality there is that the American way of doing things is the best way; full stop.

I can't attest to this myself, but I do wonder is this is at the root of what appears to be hubris?

Its all just a big game.

Funny you should call it that.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred

CatFromHue wrote: »

Just looking at Wikipedia (yeah I know!) but they list the American troop levels as 90,000 and the combined troop levels of all other countries as 39706 (I counted up the troop numbers listed). So the US has over twice the amount of troops as all the other countries combined!

That's as much down to capabilities as it is political support. The US are simply able to put 90,000 bodies on the ground, the only other countries that could do that are Russia and China and they aren't going to join a NATO lead mission.

Countries don't commit people unless they 100% support the mission and I think that's the big difference, there is a real global intention to sort out Afghanistan.

The Corinthian

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

im sure you will have seen the video of the marines pissing on dead Arabs, or when Barack Obama had to publicly apologize when the American POW camp burned dozens of Korans. Even the case of when the Marine went into the town and shot all the civilians.

I think you're confusing the American psyche where it affects military or foreign policy and the misbehaviour of the average American military personnel. What I was theorising upon was the former - it may also be an affect on the latter, but I suspect a lesser one as the reasons for such individuals' behaviour are not a specifically 'American' trait.

The friend I mentioned earlier had also been a US marine and his take on it was largely a social one in that the bulk of the troops (certainly at NCO, or lower, level) are presently drawn largely from both young recruits from disadvantaged backgrounds (without a scholarship, this is essentially the only hope they have of getting a university education) and those who had joined the reserves (again for economic reasons; for example, doing so gives them free medical insurance, which they otherwise may not be able to afford).

As a result, you tend to get uneducated, often immature, individuals who have been poor all their lives and suddenly get thrust into positions of responsibility (such as running Abu Ghraib) or the stresses of combat which they are completely unprepared for.

Personally I would be surprised if people like didn't end up abusing their positions or just going postal.

WakeUp

CatFromHue wrote: »

I suppose the objectives would be a start.

Vietnam: stop communism, install democracy, defeat Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army aided by foreign countries.
Afghanistan: capture Bin Laden, install democracy, defeat Taliban who are possibly aided by foreign countries.

The escalation into other countries would be another.

Vietnam: bombing runs in Cambodia
Afghanistan: drones being deployed into Pakistan and that's were Bin Laden was eventually found.

The help from locally trained armies and them turning on their outside forces is another. As shown in the original link and this was reported in Vietnam as well.

The similarities in both countries as both were/are third world.

The length and progress of both wars are very similar. Large scale troops first arrived in Vietnam in 1965 and finally left ten years later. The war in Afghanistan is now 10 years old too.

I would agree with what you are saying here, but I think overall the two wars cant be compared as Vietnam was in a different league when you break down US strategy on the ground in both places.

Im sure you know this apologies for pointing it out if you do ,Vietnam was the first time American military gains/victory was to be measured not by territorial gains or geography but by body count - kill as many charlies as they can - this was the strategy. Obviously goes without saying that this type of war involves some brutal type killing which I dont see being carried out in Afghanistan by the forces there. Granted some GI's go on mad ones and light up villages but its rare. In Vietnam this was the strategy day in day out and it was brutal.

In Afghanistan the Taliban are being engaged in dialogue in many instances by the different actors with interests. In Vietnam this wasnt the case with the NVA and VC. There are certainly some aspects of both wars that are the same but I dont think you can compare the two. Both are being/were processed differently.

karma_

WakeUp wrote: »

I would agree with what you are saying here, but I think overall the two wars cant be compared as Vietnam was in a different league when you break down US strategy on the ground in both places.

Im sure you know this apologies for pointing it out if you do ,Vietnam was the first time American military gains/victory was to be measured not by territorial gains or geography but by body count - kill as many charlies as they can - this was the strategy. Obviously goes without saying that this type of war involves some brutal type killing which I dont see being carried out in Afghanistan by the forces there. Granted some GI's go on mad ones and light up villages but its rare. In Vietnam this was the strategy day in day out and it was brutal.

In Afghanistan the Taliban are being engaged in dialogue in many instances by the different actors with interests. In Vietnam this wasnt the case with the NVA and VC. There are certainly some aspects of both wars that are the same but I dont think you can compare the two. Both are being/were processed differently.

Strategically Vietnam and Afghanistan do have similarities. During Vietnam, the US did not as you say fight for territory, they set up bases and dominated small areas, using air superiority and artillery and this essentially is what they are doing in Afghanistan today.

MaxSteele

Judging on the escalation and build up of tension between the US, Israel and Iran in the last couple of years, I think it's all too much a coincidence the US and British etc. have basically invaded countries bordering either side of Iran.

You can even see the same war rhetoric being thrown out there about these apparent WMD's Iran is developing although evidence suggests the opposite.

The Caspian Sea being one of the world's richest natural gas and oil reserves makes it a bit conspicuous too, not to mention the region is the main route used for the Heroin trade.

Democracy and stability my hole.

Fratton Fred

MaxSteele wrote: »

Judging on the escalation and build up of tension between the US, Israel and Iran in the last couple of years, I think it's all too much a coincidence the US and British etc. have basically invaded countries bordering either side of Iran.

You can even see the same war rhetoric being thrown out there about these apparent WMD's Iran is developing although evidence suggests the opposite.

The Caspian Sea being one of the world's richest natural gas and oil reserves makes it a bit conspicuous too, not to mention the region is the main route used for the Heroin trade.

Democracy and stability my hole.

You need the conspiracies forum.