Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:10 am
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
yeah, i don't think this war's doing anyone much good anymore. not that the alternative isn't really bad too.
yeah, that's horrible and all, but its still going on in numerous other places... i'm really curious why this became a war against the taliban. we were after al qaeda, that should have been the only objective... and it would have fit our deployment numbers much better. not to mention, a smaller impact on the region (Afghanistan/Pakistan) might have made us some friends.
I really can't fault targeting the Taliban initially. They were harboring al-Qaeda, and it didn't make a lot of sense to risk them doing that again in the future. Now, the Taliban of a decade later is a different story. They've seen what happens if they let terrorists operate on their soil. Getting invaded, overthrown, and killed a lot might have changed their calculus by now. We should have deployed a larger force initially if we were going to try to do the whole 'overthrow the gov and set up a strong, new one' thing, but the Bush admin wasn't really into COIN until after re-election. Rumsfeld thought we could do everything with limited numbers, precision strikes, etc. (all that seemed adequate once they accepted the implicit 'they'll accept us' assumption, at least in Iraq).
was their "harboring" any worse (for lack of a better word) than other states/regimes that we've worked w/ (and w/o) to attack al aqaeda?
yes--the org was operating in their country, with their knowledge. we didn't think stealth ops alone (ie pakistan now) would work back then, i presume, and that seems like a plausible thing to have thought then. tech was worse, and al qaeda was stronger (not that we probably were even sure of its full strength)
Quote:
also, i was hoping you'd bring up Iraq, b/c i've noticed lately (as this massacre has brought Afghanistan into the news again), that whenever people talk about the afghan theater of this war they always end up talking about Iraq and how it impacted the objectives of Afghanistan. i just think it furthers the utter mistake this "war on terror" has been from 9/12 on.
i agree. we should not have diverted attention from afghanistan, and should really have devoted more resources there, but at this point, i have to doubt things will get much better. soldiers on our force aren't going to suddenly get less damaged from multiple deployments, people aren't going to suddenly buy into us when we've dropped bombs and pointed guns their way, and politicians are going to react, and are going to act in their own interests.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:54 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
dkfan9 wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
yeah, i don't think this war's doing anyone much good anymore. not that the alternative isn't really bad too.
yeah, that's horrible and all, but its still going on in numerous other places... i'm really curious why this became a war against the taliban. we were after al qaeda, that should have been the only objective... and it would have fit our deployment numbers much better. not to mention, a smaller impact on the region (Afghanistan/Pakistan) might have made us some friends.
I really can't fault targeting the Taliban initially. They were harboring al-Qaeda, and it didn't make a lot of sense to risk them doing that again in the future. Now, the Taliban of a decade later is a different story. They've seen what happens if they let terrorists operate on their soil. Getting invaded, overthrown, and killed a lot might have changed their calculus by now. We should have deployed a larger force initially if we were going to try to do the whole 'overthrow the gov and set up a strong, new one' thing, but the Bush admin wasn't really into COIN until after re-election. Rumsfeld thought we could do everything with limited numbers, precision strikes, etc. (all that seemed adequate once they accepted the implicit 'they'll accept us' assumption, at least in Iraq).
was their "harboring" any worse (for lack of a better word) than other states/regimes that we've worked w/ (and w/o) to attack al aqaeda?
yes--the org was operating in their country, with their knowledge. we didn't think stealth ops alone (ie pakistan now) would work back then, i presume, and that seems like a plausible thing to have thought then. tech was worse, and al qaeda was stronger (not that we probably were even sure of its full strength)
i'm not sure this answered my question, as the bolded just seems like the definition of harboring.
my problem all along has been the idea that the USA knows what's best for governance of every country/ region and implicitly and/or explicitly works to determine said governance. the arab spring has provided a pretty good reminder of how horrible all these dictators are throughout the vast region, yet we've supported/worked-with all of them. why was the reign of the taliban considered that egregious (that much more egregious i should say) than elsewhere in the middle east (or Africa or SE Asia)?
I understand the objective of seeking & destroying al qaeda, but i've always failed to see why the taliban was made a target as well.
Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:35 pm
Administrator
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
EllisEamos wrote:
after perusing wikipedia's write-up of Afghanistan's history, I'm even more annoyed w/ our governments alliance w/ pakistan and saudi arabia.
Quote:
A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20–40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani."
...
In total, of roughly 45,000 Pakistani, Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers fighting against the forces of Massoud in mid-2001, only 14,000 were Afghans.
it seems to me that a shift in policy, rather than full-scale intervention, would have accomplished our goals much more effectively and efficiently.
When I did my alternate history I learned a lot about how screwed up the US/Pakistani alliance has been. It certainly puts a black mark on Jimmy Carter's foreign policy record.
Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:42 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Green Habit wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
after perusing wikipedia's write-up of Afghanistan's history, I'm even more annoyed w/ our governments alliance w/ pakistan and saudi arabia.
Quote:
A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20–40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani."
...
In total, of roughly 45,000 Pakistani, Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers fighting against the forces of Massoud in mid-2001, only 14,000 were Afghans.
it seems to me that a shift in policy, rather than full-scale intervention, would have accomplished our goals much more effectively and efficiently.
When I did my alternate history I learned a lot about how screwed up the US/Pakistani alliance has been. It certainly puts a black mark on Jimmy Carter's foreign policy record.
i don't understand what the USA has gained from the last 30 years of working w/ Pakistan. And to get back to my opinion above, it appears to me as if Pakistan was doing more to "harbor" al qaeda than the taliban (since the taliban was not wholly indigenous).
Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:00 am
AnalLog
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Quote:
But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him "we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie", he simply replies: "Yes."
An article about a massacre in Syria. What struck me was in describing minimal rebel activity in the town, it is related that rebels destroyed 9 tanks, mostly with homemade bombs as the army left the town. I'm curious if some of these 'opposition activists' (an interesting term for a militia of sorts, isn't it?) learned these skills in Iraq blowing up coalition forces. Syria was a major transit point for jihadis during the Iraq war, wasn't it? Or maybe its nothing and they just teach IED 101 in every local Syrian junior college.
An article about a massacre in Syria. What struck me was in describing minimal rebel activity in the town, it is related that rebels destroyed 9 tanks, mostly with homemade bombs as the army left the town. I'm curious if some of these 'opposition activists' (an interesting term for a militia of sorts, isn't it?) learned these skills in Iraq blowing up coalition forces. Syria was a major transit point for jihadis during the Iraq war, wasn't it? Or maybe its nothing and they just teach IED 101 in every local Syrian junior college.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" according to a famous book from that area of the world.
An article about a massacre in Syria. What struck me was in describing minimal rebel activity in the town, it is related that rebels destroyed 9 tanks, mostly with homemade bombs as the army left the town. I'm curious if some of these 'opposition activists' (an interesting term for a militia of sorts, isn't it?) learned these skills in Iraq blowing up coalition forces. Syria was a major transit point for jihadis during the Iraq war, wasn't it? Or maybe its nothing and they just teach IED 101 in every local Syrian junior college.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" according to a famous book from that area of the world.
that's an interesting quote b.i., seeing as they're borrowing from the U.S.'s playbook too:
An article about a massacre in Syria. What struck me was in describing minimal rebel activity in the town, it is related that rebels destroyed 9 tanks, mostly with homemade bombs as the army left the town. I'm curious if some of these 'opposition activists' (an interesting term for a militia of sorts, isn't it?) learned these skills in Iraq blowing up coalition forces. Syria was a major transit point for jihadis during the Iraq war, wasn't it? Or maybe its nothing and they just teach IED 101 in every local Syrian junior college.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" according to a famous book from that area of the world.
that's an interesting quote b.i., seeing as they're borrowing from the U.S.'s playbook too:
An article about a massacre in Syria. What struck me was in describing minimal rebel activity in the town, it is related that rebels destroyed 9 tanks, mostly with homemade bombs as the army left the town. I'm curious if some of these 'opposition activists' (an interesting term for a militia of sorts, isn't it?) learned these skills in Iraq blowing up coalition forces. Syria was a major transit point for jihadis during the Iraq war, wasn't it? Or maybe its nothing and they just teach IED 101 in every local Syrian junior college.
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" according to a famous book from that area of the world.
that's an interesting quote b.i., seeing as they're borrowing from the U.S.'s playbook too:
Well... Obama is a Muslim dictator... so... yeah.
much like Bush II was a disciple of the inquisition.
Post subject: Re: The War Room: Discuss The War On Terror And Iraq
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:46 pm
On the bright side
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm Posts: 17495 Location: Surfside Beach, SC Gender: Male
We should really have separate threads for Iraq and the War on Terror. Mods, could you please go through and assign each individual post to the appropriate thread? Thanks.
_________________ I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia
"Burn the Quran! Burn the fucking Quran!" a woman screams hoarsely, over and over again. Tinny guitars course beneath her howls, sawing away at any semblance of melody. Sampled snippets of fundamentalist Islamic rhetoric filter through, and muffled voices exhort their unseen audience to praise Allah and to destroy the infidel.
To fans of heavy music, the hallmarks are immediately recognizable. This is raw, mid-tempo black metal, a lo-fi example of heavy metal's most evil subgenre. Black metal feeds upon hatred, nihilism, and anti-human behavior. Extremity is everything. It drinks the blood of Christ, turns upon its own, and takes almost carnal pleasure in the theory and imagery of war. The music from the early days of this scene conjured images of the ashes of burned churches and the dried blood of murder, and yet the genre, in its middle age, often doesn't shock the way it once did. The hellish noise of this particular song, though, does. There's something different about it. This is real.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
So, it sounds like pulling our troops out of Afghanistan this year would save more money than sequestration. If only we had a President with some balls.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum