What in the name of skilfully poised ****?

[213374U]

But quite frankly I'm tired of waiting for them to come around, the only sure fire way to educate savages is through cultural integration, so just conquer the **** out of them already.

That hasn't worked since Alexander's time. Wasn't it MacArthur who warned against land wars in Asia? Oh well, maybe he just was assuming that whenever you launch a war you do it with the intention of winning.

 

Silly WWII-era geostrategists...

[Malcador]

He was the guy that wanted to nuke China during Korea no ? Or was that LeMay.

[Orogun01]

That hasn't worked since Alexander's time. Wasn't it MacArthur who warned against land wars in Asia? Oh well, maybe he just was assuming that whenever you launch a war you do it with the intention of winning.

 

Silly WWII-era geostrategists...

So then we should assume that none of the old strategies would work because they are outdated, but they still study them because the concept remains the same. If we can adapt it to the new state of the world, its a very a very viable option. Also I had something in mind more along the lines of propaganda and police state

[213374U]

So then we should assume that none of the old strategies would work because they are outdated, but they still study them because the concept remains the same. If we can adapt it to the new state of the world, its a very a very viable option. Also I had something in mind more along the lines of propaganda and police state.

The concept hardly remains the same, which is why classical warfare is just a small part of the curricula in military colleges, pretty much how "History of Physics" may get you a credit or two if that's what you are studying. The concept of enlightening a people by means of "cultural assimilation" is not quite so simple, either. The Romans believed that was the way to go, and while it ostensibly worked, they failed to realize that Roman culture would be changed, in turn.

 

At any rate, clearly "defense" needs have seen a radical shift since the fall of the Soviet Union and, judging from the results in Afghanistan, (Western) military doctrine is lagging way behind. What with the US -and by extension, the whole of NATO- always being prepared to fight the previous war and all. Or maybe they weren't quite so ready, because the example of how to fail at war in Afghanistan should have been pretty fresh in the minds of military planners. It's funny that NATO is finding exactly the same kind of problems the Soviets did, only it was the US that actually manufactured those problems, back in the day.

 

Good thing they finally got Goldstein, at least.

Edited February 24, 2012 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

So then we should assume that none of the old strategies would work because they are outdated, but they still study them because the concept remains the same. If we can adapt it to the new state of the world, its a very a very viable option. Also I had something in mind more along the lines of propaganda and police state.

The concept hardly remains the same, which is why classical warfare is just a small part of the curricula in military colleges, pretty much how "History of Physics" may get you a credit or two if that's what you are studying. The concept of enlightening a people by means of "cultural assimilation" is not quite so simple, either. The Romans believed that was the way to go, and while it ostensibly worked, they failed to realize that Roman culture would be changed, in turn.

Arguably, the West is in a prime position since they already have their own Middle Eastern cultures due to immigration because of which their own culture its faced with change. I never said that it would be simple but it seems to yield the most effective solution with the least amount of bloodshed.

[Rostere]

The embarrassment continues: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/03/201231163054684909.html

[Orogun01]

The embarrassment continues: http://www.aljazeera...3054684909.html

Well, the thread's title fits this like a glove. Seriously what the hell are they doing over there?

[Calax]

You're an idiot if you think that was ordered. It was probably just some PTSD'd idiot driven to far by the people he's supposedly "protecting" screaming "Death to america" rioting and killing american citizens because of an accident.

[Malcador]

Pretty much that, looks bad though. Especially to some Afghan plebe.

[Walsingham]

Hard to believe anyone would go this far. Particularly not a senior NCO.

 

I've no doubt he'd try to justify the attacks on PTSD or 'theys ungrateful' grounds. But IMO the man's not just a murderous ****ing coward, but he's pissed on all his comrades. This one incident will undo dozens of sacrifices and months of years of hard work. Not to mention the work of allies like Britain.

 

However, my main feeling is sadness that so many innocent people have been killed for the sake of one insane [and at this point my command of expletives proved insufficient].

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're an idiot if you think that was ordered. It was probably just some PTSD'd idiot driven to far by the people he's supposedly "protecting" screaming "Death to america" rioting and killing american citizens because of an accident.

 

The accident being foreign troops on their soil.

[Gfted1]

More like the accident of letting Al Qaeda hang out there.

[Gorgon]

He went bat****, happens in combat. Not sure there is anything to learn from it.

[Nepenthe]

He went bat****, happens in combat. Not sure there is anything to learn from it.

Probably work including spotting signs of PTSD into military training, especially in the case of an (essentially) occupying army.

[Drowsy Emperor]

More like the accident of letting Al Qaeda hang out there.

 

Osama was caught in Pakistan, most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were originally from Saudi Arabia. So much for your Afghan Al Quaeda.

 

Besides, I hope you don't really think the US mobilized its forces and such immense resources because of something as insignificant as terrorist activity, a few bums hanging out in caves with delusions of global jihad.

[Hurlshort]

Boo, are you trying to imply this is about oil or something? That might be a good argument for the war in Iraq, but there is very little economic gain to be had in Afghanistan, it really was a war against terror that put us there.

 

Back to this tragedy, do you folks think he should be tried by an Afghani court? I know this is a bit of a complicated area of the law, like when a diplomat commits murder. My feeling is he should face the Afghanistan court system. I could see him getting some protection from the US government if he got into a confrontation with someone and there was a death, but this lunatic killed children. He wasn't out on patrol in a warzone either, he went into these people's homes and murdered them. If he did this in Texas he would get a fast pass to the gas chamber.

[Gfted1]

More like the accident of letting Al Qaeda hang out there.

 

Osama was caught in Pakistan, most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were originally from Saudi Arabia. So much for your Afghan Al Quaeda.

 

Besides, I hope you don't really think the US mobilized its forces and such immense resources because of something as insignificant as terrorist activity, a few bums hanging out in caves with delusions of global jihad.

 

Youre wrong about so much so often I can only assume its how you troll. Heres the Wiki article on the matter and luckily you only have to read the first paragraph.

[Orogun01]

 

Back to this tragedy, do you folks think he should be tried by an Afghani court? I know this is a bit of a complicated area of the law, like when a diplomat commits murder. My feeling is he should face the Afghanistan court system. I could see him getting some protection from the US government if he got into a confrontation with someone and there was a death, but this lunatic killed children. He wasn't out on patrol in a warzone either, he went into these people's homes and murdered them. If he did this in Texas he would get a fast pass to the gas chamber.

I really hope that there's no protection from the US courts for this guy, it would definitively prove that there is something wrong with us for supporting this kind of behavior.

That said; they shouldn't give him to Afghan authorities, it won't quell the anti-american sentiment and would only demoralize our troops to know that we will throw them to the wolves. Authority should be asserted, we should take charge of prosecuting and deal with this situation not to please the Afghans ( which may go from difficult to impossible) but to keep order in the ranks.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Boo, are you trying to imply this is about oil or something? That might be a good argument for the war in Iraq, but there is very little economic gain to be had in Afghanistan, it really was a war against terror that put us there.

 

Back to this tragedy, do you folks think he should be tried by an Afghani court? I know this is a bit of a complicated area of the law, like when a diplomat commits murder. My feeling is he should face the Afghanistan court system. I could see him getting some protection from the US government if he got into a confrontation with someone and there was a death, but this lunatic killed children. He wasn't out on patrol in a warzone either, he went into these people's homes and murdered them. If he did this in Texas he would get a fast pass to the gas chamber.

 

Every occupation of Afghanistan is always about its strategic position, a very important land route and crossroad through Asia.

 

Afghanistan provides access to Pakistan & India from Central Asia. From Pakistan, it is a straight line to the Persian Gulf. This is why Russia always wanted control of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan also provides access from the Indian subcontinent to Central Asian countries. Afghanistan also provides access to the troubled Chinese province of Xinjiang in southwest China.

...vital strategic asset, this gateway between Central Asia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India.

 

Real, tangible control over Afghanistan is every military strategist's wet dream. I don't know how important it is from a trade perspective but I imagine its far from insignificant.

 

@Gifted:

 

I'm very much aware of what US politicians said while they were preparing the invasion but it would be very silly to take those things at face value.

 

From a military perspective terrorism is insignificant, the taliban irrelevant. No one cares if they set of a few bombs, more people die from the flu every day than from terrorist activity.

The actual threat to the US is an exaggeration, fittingly used in the wake of Sep. 11 to gain support for the war, which as far as Afghanistan is concerned is always led for geo-strategic reasons.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

If the US just wanted to plop a few military bases down in Afghanistan for strategic means, they could have done so ages ago with a lot less manpower and resources committed. Instead they are trying to help Afghanistan establish a stable government with an effective military. I disagree often with the way the US is handling itself in Afghanistan, but don't lose sight of the fact the Taliban is one of the most vile groups in modern history, and handing back control of the government to them is a terrible idea.

[Gorgon]

That's true enough, but what we are propping up is corrupt as hell. Lesser of two evils.

[Drowsy Emperor]

If the US just wanted to plop a few military bases down in Afghanistan for strategic means, they could have done so ages ago with a lot less manpower and resources committed. Instead they are trying to help Afghanistan establish a stable government with an effective military. I disagree often with the way the US is handling itself in Afghanistan, but don't lose sight of the fact the Taliban is one of the most vile groups in modern history, and handing back control of the government to them is a terrible idea.

 

What are military bases without consolidated ground? - just outposts in hostile territory.

 

The point of the fight against Taliban is to break them down and gain a pacified colony, so that US forces can be diminished or shuffled around without danger as needed. That is why the US can't leave, because the current puppet government wouldn't last a week - thereby rendering the whole war effort worthless.

 

Also that doesn't mean the US isn't currently getting what it wanted - its the media who are playing up the whole: "war with a clear victory" angle. Its very opportune to hold Afghanistan even with the occasional dead soldiers. The overall cost is small compared to the strategic gain.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

That's true enough, but what we are propping up is corrupt as hell. Lesser of two evils.

 

Yep, that's what I have my problems with

It's too bad NATO is so ineffective, the dream scenario is the US goes in, removes the Taliban, and then an international police force comes in to help establish a stable government built around basic human rights and no corruption.

[Gorgon]

That's unsurprising. The US probably sees a lot of alternative use for an ex cold war strategic alliance against the Russians. The member states, not so much.

 

The UN can't take up the cause of spreading democracy across he globe either, not all its member states are democracies.

 

Besides, if it was as easy as defeating the Taliban and having someone else sort out the rest we would have been done a long time ago.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

I thought more about this soldier and I think they need to make this trial public. He still needs to be tried with a US military court, but I believe the Afghan people should be able to see it happen. Steps should be taken to make sure it is visible. There is still going to be some violence and problems as a result of this tragedy, but that help somewhat.