http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/

Good read.

"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.


Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

(02-04-2019 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/
Good read.
"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.
Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. Because a war that you don't intend to win is one you can't win. Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to surrender. And continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of young Americans in a fight to surrender is the height of immorality. OK, maybe that's long on platitudes, but some platitudes actually make sense.

I can make a reasonable argument that getting in was a good idea in the first place. But I cannot make such an argument for staying in. GTFO and stay TFO.

We can't civilize the world and shouldn't try. We can intimidate the crap out of their leaders to make them behave though, and we should continue to do that.

We’ve been fighting a War on Terror since 9-11 by going after street-level radical Islamist terrorists and it’s not working. Time to try something else.

I'm not sure I know what exactly that is, but there has to be something.

(02-04-2019 11:05 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  We’ve been fighting a War on Terror since 9-11 by going after street-level radical Islamist terrorists and it’s not working. Time to try something else.
I'm not sure I know what exactly that is, but there has to be something.

Not pissing them off by trying to micromanage their lives would be a good start. Of course, the problem now is that we've now basically micromanaged a generation, and it's going to take them a while to get over it.

And ultimately, our operation in Afghanistan is dependent on Iran (no way), China (no way), Pakistan or Russia allowing us access. Look at a map. We need to get out while we have leverage. You never know when relations with Russia will sour. And Pakistan already shut down our trucks once. And their secret service is helping the Taliban.

(02-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/
Good read.
"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.
Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. Because a war that you don't intend to win is one you can't win. Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to surrender. And continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of young Americans in a fight to surrender is the height of immorality. OK, maybe that's long on platitudes, but some platitudes actually make sense.

I can make a reasonable argument that getting in was a good idea in the first place. But I cannot make such an argument for staying in. GTFO and stay TFO.

^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Any time "collateral damage" is an issue---then you arent really trying to win a war. In WWII we literally fire bombed entire cities. Thats what war looks like when you are totally committed to winning a war. My feelings is if you are not committed to winning enough to NOT worry about "collateral damage"--then you arent committed enough to ask Americans to send their sons to those places to die.

(02-04-2019 11:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/
Good read.
"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.
Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. Because a war that you don't intend to win is one you can't win. Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to surrender. And continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of young Americans in a fight to surrender is the height of immorality. OK, maybe that's long on platitudes, but some platitudes actually make sense.

I can make a reasonable argument that getting in was a good idea in the first place. But I cannot make such an argument for staying in. GTFO and stay TFO.

THIS. Any time "collateral damage" is an issue---then you arent really trying to win a war. In WWII we literally fire bombed entire cities. Thats what it looks like when you are totally committed to winning a war. My feelings is if you are not committed to winning enough to not worry about "collateral damage"--then you arent committed enough to ask Americans to send their sons to those places to die.

And its our allies, the Afghan government, that has been complaining most about collateral damage.

(02-04-2019 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 11:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/
Good read.
"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.
Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. Because a war that you don't intend to win is one you can't win. Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to surrender. And continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of young Americans in a fight to surrender is the height of immorality. OK, maybe that's long on platitudes, but some platitudes actually make sense.

I can make a reasonable argument that getting in was a good idea in the first place. But I cannot make such an argument for staying in. GTFO and stay TFO.

THIS. Any time "collateral damage" is an issue---then you arent really trying to win a war. In WWII we literally fire bombed entire cities. Thats what it looks like when you are totally committed to winning a war. My feelings is if you are not committed to winning enough to not worry about "collateral damage"--then you arent committed enough to ask Americans to send their sons to those places to die.

And its our allies, the Afghan government, that has been complaining most about collateral damage.

It's a viscous cycle. The "collateral damage" is what feeds the next generation of terrorist recruiting. The reason total war worked in WW2 is because we were basically fighting ourselves(the average citizen and soldier, not the psychopathic Reich leadership) It was effective because we obliterated everything in our way until we defeated their leadership. Once that was done, we set to helping them rebuild because they shared our morals and principles under post-Reich leadership and obviously were trade partners.

Fighting Jihadist is an unwinnable war. For every Jihadist you kill, you inspire more. Holy Wars should be reserved for the end of times otherwise they will never end. Our focus should move from eradication to containment. Keep the crazies killing the crazies over there.

(02-04-2019 01:44 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  It's a viscous cycle. The "collateral damage" is what feeds the next generation of terrorist recruiting. The reason total war worked in WW2 is because we were basically fighting ourselves(the average citizen and soldier, not the psychopathic Reich leadership) It was effective because we obliterated everything in our way until we defeated their leadership. Once that was done, we set to helping them rebuild because they shared our morals and principles under post-Reich leadership and obviously were trade partners.
Fighting Jihadist is an unwinnable war. For every Jihadist you kill, you inspire more. Holy Wars should be reserved for the end of times otherwise they will never end. Our focus should move from eradication to containment. Keep the crazies killing the crazies over there.

"Armies are good at two things--killing people and breaking things." -- Norman Schwartzkopf

If it isn't worth killing everybody who needs killing and breaking everything the needs breaking (and being willing to err on the side of killing or breaking a few that didn't need it), then it is not worth risking a single American life or limb. Not one.

The manner in which we have conducted ourselves in the Middle East in the last 15-20 years has done more to inspire jihadists than had we simply gone in, killed and overkilled, broken and over broken, tell whoever is left in charge that if they don't leave then we will come back to kill them, and then GTFO and stay TFO.

(02-04-2019 01:44 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 11:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/31/no-a...-now-ever/
Good read.
"...None of these painful realizations, however, diminishes the main point: after 2,419 American troop deaths, approximately $1 trillion in taxpayer money (the United States spent $45 billion alone on the war last year), and 17 years of blood-stained effort, the United States is incapable of resolving Afghanistan’s political problems. Those problems could fill an entire encyclopedia, from systemic political corruption, warlordism, and ethnic infighting to significant economic underdevelopment, oversized bureaucracy, and an absence of government authority in rural areas.
Not one item on the list can be permanently solved by the U.S. military. In a world increasingly defined by great power competition, arguing that it’s in America’s best interests to do so is indefensible...."

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. Because a war that you don't intend to win is one you can't win. Wars end one of two ways--you win, or you surrender. If you're not fighting to win, you're fighting to surrender. And continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of young Americans in a fight to surrender is the height of immorality. OK, maybe that's long on platitudes, but some platitudes actually make sense.

I can make a reasonable argument that getting in was a good idea in the first place. But I cannot make such an argument for staying in. GTFO and stay TFO.

THIS. Any time "collateral damage" is an issue---then you arent really trying to win a war. In WWII we literally fire bombed entire cities. Thats what it looks like when you are totally committed to winning a war. My feelings is if you are not committed to winning enough to not worry about "collateral damage"--then you arent committed enough to ask Americans to send their sons to those places to die.

And its our allies, the Afghan government, that has been complaining most about collateral damage.

It's a viscous cycle. The "collateral damage" is what feeds the next generation of terrorist recruiting. The reason total war worked in WW2 is because we were basically fighting ourselves(the average citizen and soldier, not the psychopathic Reich leadership) It was effective because we obliterated everything in our way until we defeated their leadership. Once that was done, we set to helping them rebuild because they shared our morals and principles under post-Reich leadership and obviously were trade partners.

Fighting Jihadist is an unwinnable war. For every Jihadist you kill, you inspire more. Holy Wars should be reserved for the end of times otherwise they will never end. Our focus should move from eradication to containment. Keep the crazies killing the crazies over there.

Well---its not that simple. Jihadist dont care about collateral damage. They kill those who disobey--as well as their families---on purpose. So, the population fears the jihadist far more than the Americans. The cost of disobeying Jihadist is higher. The people there don't necessarily support the jihadist---they just know there are fewer direct repercussions from doing what the jihadist require. It really comes back to who is more committed to winning. Same thing happened in Vietnam.

Im not saying we should be killing entire families. What Im saying is---if you are going to be fighting a war against people that will not concern themselves with "collateral damage" then you will lose if you are not committed enough to fight with the same rules. In WWII we fought like our enemies. We won a great victory. In Vietnam and the Middle East we did not. Thus, the outcomes were different--and will always be so.

My conclusion is either you fight all out war--or dont fight. As Yoda said---"Do or do not---there is no try". Dont commit American troops to fight unless you are willing to fight all out war. Dont send US boys to their death when you aren not fully committed to fight all out to win. What you will find is after you engage in that all out horror once or twice---the appetite to commit US troops to war will be lower and the appetite to risk war against the US will be drastically reduced.