Why the Afghan Surge Will Fail
Before the Obama administration buys into General Stanley McChrystal's escalation strategy, it might spend some time examining the August 12 battle of Dananeh, a scruffy little town of 2,000 perched at the entrance to the Naw Zad Valley in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province.
Dananeh is a textbook example of why counterinsurgency won't work in that country, as well as a case study in military thinking straight out of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland.
Strategic Towns
According to the United States, the purpose of the attack was to seize a "strategic" town, cut "Taliban supply lines," and secure the area for the presidential elections. Taking Dananeh would also "outflank the insurgents," "isolating" them in the surrounding mountains and forests.
What is wrong with this scenario?
One, the concept of a "strategic" town of 2,000 people in a vast country filled with tens of thousands of villages like Dananeh is bizarre.
Two, the Taliban don't have "flanks." They are a fluid, irregular force, not an infantry company dug into a set position. "Flanking" an enemy is what you did to the Wehrmacht in World War II.
Three, "Taliban supply lines" are not highways and rail intersections. They're goat trails.
Four, "isolate" the Taliban in the surrounding mountains and forests? Obviously, no one in the Pentagon has ever read the story of Brer Rabbit, who taunted his adversary with the famous words, "Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Fox." Mountains and forests are where the Taliban move freely.
The Taliban were also not the slightest bit surprised when the United States showed up. When the Marines helicoptered in at night, all was quiet. At dawn - the Taliban have no night-fighting equipment - the insurgents opened up with rockets, mortars, and machine guns. "I am pretty sure they knew of it [the attack] in advance," Golf Company commander Captain Zachary Martin told the Associated Press.
Pinned down, the Marines brought in air power and artillery and, after four days of fierce fighting, took the town. But the Taliban had decamped on the third night. The outcome? A chewed-up town and 12 dead insurgents - that is, if you don't see a difference between an "insurgent" and a villager who didn't get out in time, so that all the dead are automatically members of the Taliban.
"I'd say we've gained a foothold for now, and it's a substantial one that we're not going to let go," says Martin. "I think this has the potential to be a watershed."
Only if hallucinations become the order of the day.
Irregular Warfare
The battle of Dananeh was a classic example of irregular warfare. The locals tip off the guerrillas that the army is coming. The Taliban set up an ambush, fight until the heavy firepower comes in, then slip away.
"Taliban fighters and their commanders have escaped the Marines' big offensive into Afghanistan's Helmand province and moved into areas to the west and north, prompting fears that the U.S. effort has just moved the Taliban problem elsewhere," writes Nancy Youssef of the McClatchy newspapers.
When the Taliban went north they attacked German and Italian troops.
In short, the insurgency is adjusting. "To many of the Americans, it appeared as if the insurgents had attended something akin to the U.S. Army's Ranger school, which teaches soldiers how to fight in small groups in austere environments," writes Karen DeYoung in The Washington Post.
Actually, the Afghans have been doing that for some time, as Greeks, Mongols, British, and Russians discovered.
One Pentagon officer told the Post that the Taliban has been using the Korengal Valley that borders Pakistan as a training ground. It's "a perfect lab to vet fighters and study U.S. tactics," he said, and to learn how to gauge the response time for U.S. artillery, air strikes, and helicopter assaults. "They know exactly how long it takes before...they have to break contact and pull back."
Just like they did at Dananeh.
McChrystal's Plan
General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 new troops in order to hold the "major" cities and secure the population from the Taliban. But even by its own standards, the plan is deeply flawed. The military's Counterinsurgency Field Manual recommends a ratio of 20 soldiers for every 1,000 residents. Since Afghanistan has a population of slightly over 32 million, that would require a force of 660,000 soldiers.
The United States will shortly have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, plus a stealth surge of 13,000 support troops. If the Pentagon sends 40,000 additional troops, U.S. forces will rise to 121,000. Added to that are 35,000 NATO troops, though most alliance members are under increasing domestic pressure to withdraw their soldiers. McChrystal wants to expand the Afghan army to 240,000, and there is talk of trying to reach 340,000.
Even with the larger Afghan army, the counterinsurgency plan is 150,000 soldiers short.
An Afghan Army?
And can you really count on the Afghan army? It doesn't have the officers and sergeants to command 340,000 troops. And the counterinsurgency formula calls for "trained" troops, not just armed boots on the ground. According to a recent review, up to 25% of recruits quit each year, and the number of trained units has actually declined over the past six months.
On top of this, Afghanistan doesn't really have a national army. If Pashtun soldiers are deployed in the Tajik-speaking north, they will be seen as occupiers, and vice-versa for Tajiks in Pashtun areas. If both groups are deployed in their home territories, the pressures of kinship will almost certainly overwhelm any allegiance to a national government, particularly one as corrupt and unpopular as the current Karzai regime.
And by defending the cities, exactly whom will U.S. troops be protecting? When it comes to Afghanistan, "major" population centers are almost a contradiction in terms. There are essentially five cities in the country, Kabul (2.5 million), Kandahar (331,000), Mazar-e-Sharif (200,000), Herat (272,000), and Jalalabad (20,000). Those five cities make up a little more than 10% of the population, over half of which is centered in Kabul. The rest of the population is rural, living in towns of 1,500 or fewer, smaller even than Dananeh.
But spreading the troops into small firebases makes them extremely vulnerable, as the United States found out in early September, when eight soldiers were killed in an attack on a small unit in the Kamdesh district of Nuristan province. The base was abandoned a week later and, according to the Asia Times, is now controlled by the Taliban.
MRAP Attack
While McChrystal says he wants to get the troops out of "armored vehicles" and into the streets with the people, the United States will have to use patrols to maintain a presence outside of the cities. On occasion, that can get almost comedic. Take the convoy of Stryker light tanks that set out on October 12 from "Forward Operating Base Spin Boldak" in Khandar province for what was described as a "high-risk mission into uncharted territory."
The convoy was led by the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles designed to resist the insurgent's weapon-of-choice in Afghanistan, roadside bombs. But the MRAP was designed for Iraq, which has lots of good roads. Since Afghanistan has virtually no roads, the MRAPs broke down. Without the MRAPs the Strykers could not move. The "high-risk" mission ended up hunkering down in the desert for the night and slogging home in the morning. They never saw an insurgent.
Afterwards, Sergeant John Belajac remarked, "I can't imagine what it is going to be like when it starts raining."
If you are looking for an Afghanistan War metaphor, the Spin Boldak convoy may be it.
Dangerous Illusions
McChrystal argues that the current situation is "critical," and that an escalation "will be decisive." But as former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst A.J. Rossmiller says, the war is a stalemate. "The insurgency does not have the capability to defeat U.S. forces or depose Afghanistan's central government, and...U.S. forces do not the ability to vanquish the insurgency." While the purported goal of the war is denying al-Qaeda a sanctuary, according to U.S. intelligence the organization has fewer than 100 fighters in the country. And further, the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, pledges that his organization will not interfere with Afghanistan's neighbors or the West, which suggests that the insurgents have been learning about diplomacy as well.
The Afghanistan War can only be solved by sitting all the parties down and working out a political settlement. Since the Taliban have already made a seven-point peace proposal, that hardly seems an insurmountable task.
Anything else is a dangerous illusion.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
56 Comments so far
Show AllThe "success" is a secret: TAPI pipeline.
Everything else is cover story, excuse, pretext, sop.
The objective--TAPI pipeline--cannot be mentioned . . . because the world would see US as murderers and thieves.
I don't know how we know it will "fail" when we can't define success. The author is correct in pointing out the irregular nature of the so called "war". This is nothing at all like the set piece battles of traditional wars, there will be no Appomattox surrender event to tell us that someone "won".
utube; Combat Outpost: Afghanistan (11 min 22 sec.)
Interesting. Mirrors article.
Bringing democracy with the barrel of a gun is like raping for sex education
.That's why its called the GRAVEYARD of EMPIRES !!!!!!!!!
.Know your enemy, his tactics, his cultural mindset, his geography...up to the minute.......or die.
.Two hard choices: Pull out, cut and run,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or fire Adm. Mullen and General McChrystal, and switch to "PLAN B".
.Any other way, is a bloody repeat of our defeat in Viet Nam !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
JAM4
Perhaps Obama believes, like George H.W. Bush did, that his mission is for the United States to somehow kick the Vietnam syndrome. The U.S. put over 500,000 troops in Vietnam in the 1960s and still failed to conquer that country. Since Afghanistan is larger and has more people than Vietnam and since the Afghans are every bit as determined as the Vietnamese to resist the Americans, it it quite doubtful if the U.S. will have any more success in occupying Afghanistan as the British and Russians did when they also were repelled by the Afghans.
That's interesting. Ellsberg said something similar in a recent Real News interview.
Since Afghanistan will, fairly obviously, reinforce the social phenomena that these birds call "Vietnam syndrome," it seems to me that we should look for motives under such ignorance in professionals who, after all, have access to at least as much information as I do and as I assume you do.
Although this might likely motivate someone, it seems unlikely that this is the major issue for the US government as a whole unless I take "Vietnam syndrome" very broadly, to amount to the key issue of control over society in general.
"and still failed to conquer that country."
You say that as though the Soviet backed North did not invade the South to impose a communist regime which ultimately lead to millions of dead civilians and refugees.
And this allegation, if true, is supposed to somehow justify the United States sending in over 500,000 American forces into that country [a country which never threatened anyone in these United States] which ultimately led to the killing of 2 to 3 million Vietnamese and the carpet bombing of that country and the unnecessary deaths of close to 60,000 American military personnel? I think not.
" is supposed to somehow justify the United States sending in over 500,000 American forces into that country "
I never tried to justify anything. I simply pointed out that *you* forget or some how are not sure how the Soviet backed North invaded the South, which led to millions of dead and refugees.
You ignore the FACT that the US and its puppet Diem BLOCKED the agreed democratic elections to unify the country because they KNEW that Ho would win. THAT led to the war.
Until you either study and learn that historical fact, OR stop being a phony, your arguments are entirely empty.
I think then we now agree that " the Soviet backed North invaded the South, which led to millions of dead and refugees." Good.
You say that as though the US and our puppet Diem did not block the unification elections agreed to in Geneva because we knew Ho would win the elections, which ultimately led to...
Millions of dead civilians and refugees, like I said. Lots of Boat People, many who died in wretched conditions trying to escape. Remember them?
Can you find anyone in the various thriving Vietnamese neighborhoods in many US cities who praise "Ho" and the the communists? Good luck with that.
"Millions of dead civilians and refugees, like I said."
No, THE OPPOSITE of what you said.
You simply ignore my point - long before the supposed "cause" of the war that you cite, the parties met in Geneva and agreed to hold elections to unify the country. The US and our puppet Diem BLOCKED the elections and prevented the popular vote BECAUSE everyone (including the CIA and Kennedy and Tuchman and EVERYONE) knew Ho would win, in the south and in the north, and the country would be unified peacefully by democratic elections. US refusal to accept this truth, and US insistence on militarily imposing its will against this truth, led to the "Millions of dead civilians and refugees."
As always it is truly POINTLESS to try to engage Jake Newton in anything resembling an actual exchange of ideas. "Never acknowledge, always bait" is Jake Newton's motto and modus operandi.
"No, THE OPPOSITE of what you said."
So you think that millions (at *least* half a million) did *not* die *after* the NVA finally took over and the US was long gone, and that there were no refugees either. Is that what you are saying?
"long before the supposed "cause" of the war that you cite,"
I never cited a cause of the war.
"the parties met in Geneva and agreed to hold elections to unify the country."
Are you also talking about 1956? That is irrelevant then to the NVA columns rolling over Southern defenders in the early seventies, and irrelevant to what happened after, that is, the additional deaths and refugees.
"As always it is truly POINTLESS to try to engage Jake Newton in anything resembling an actual exchange of ideas."
*shrug* Your turn.
Webwalk
Intelligently and persuasively well stated.
CD Conga-Liners. :-)
Why would they?
Why would Americans leaving the USA praise the USA?
There were a whole lot of Mafia linked powerful and rich Cubans that served in the regime of Batista. I am sure as they reside in Florida dreaming of a return, they too have little good to say of Cuba.
Here is a FACT that escapes you.Historicaly there never WAS a North and a South Vietnam. This dividing of the country was arbitrary and something imposed upon the peoples of Vietnam.
Here is another fact. The CIA determined that both in the North and the South "Ho" would win the elections by an overwhelming margin.
Here is another fact. The Vietnamese the USA backed were the very ones that colluded with the Japanese Invaders and beofore that the French. These people that colluded with the various powers that occupied that nation did so because they made MONEY off that collusion.
The MAJORITY of Vietnamese in the south were opposed to the US backed Government. They saw that Government as corrupt. Even after a decade of occupation the Viet Cong could move freely in the south because the people supported them.
And just as an "In case you did not know". In Poland, the Netherlands, France, Norway Czechoslovakia , Greece, Yugloslvia and other such nations...
When the Germans were driven out the local population took their revenge upon those that collabarated with the occupiers and many of those peoples who collabarated with the Germans fled those countries..
And had little good to say about them.
GwNorth November 14th, 2009 3:06 am
"Why would they?"
They wouldn't of course, the obvious point being that many thousands escaped *for some reason*. Can you think of what that would be?
"Why would Americans leaving the USA praise the USA?"
What an odd example, a country where people are actually trying to *enter* and can't because there are too many.
"Historicaly there never WAS a North and a South Vietnam."
So what?
"This dividing of the country was arbitrary and something imposed upon the peoples of Vietnam."
Agreed and the division constituted political *reality* at the time.
"The CIA determined that both in the North and the South "Ho" would win the elections by an overwhelming margin."
Source please? When exactly did they determine this? Why do you beleive the CIA given the sketchy history of their intelligence?
"The MAJORITY of Vietnamese in the south were opposed to the US backed Government."
So what? That doesn't mean they welcomed the Soviet backed Hanoi government. The Vietnamese in general were very resistant to *any* outsiders.
Eroll originally stated that the US "failed to conquer". Do you believe that the US specifically had designs on "conquest" of Vietnam? If so, how do you support that belief? Stanley Karnow's book is very unsympathetic to the US but he never even alludes to that intent.
You've got to study up before you make comments such as these. Others have set you straight so I'll leave it at that.
No, they have not. They went just as far as you did here and no farther. Want to give it a try?
>>What an odd example, a country where people are actually trying to *enter* and can't because there are too many.
The point is when people LEAVE a country for reasons of their own , they are not going to be praising that country.
>>Source please? When exactly did they determine this? Why do you beleive the CIA given the sketchy history of their intelligence?
If you must ask for a source, then this shows you are totally misinformed on Vietnam. This is well known for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of that countries history. Given that you did not even know this I can only wonder has why you bother to comment.
>>So what? That doesn't mean they welcomed the Soviet backed Hanoi government. The Vietnamese in general were very resistant to *any* outsiders.
The Soviets were not carpet Bombing Saigon. Nor were they dropping Agent Orange over the country. Nor were they slaughtering peasants in villages. Nor were they murdering schhol teachers and Doctors. It was the USA who had troops there and were doing all of these things.
>>Eroll originally stated that the US "failed to conquer". Do you believe that the US specifically had designs on "conquest" of Vietnam? If so, how do you support that belief? Stanley Karnow's book is very unsympathetic to the US but he never even alludes to that intent.
The USA wanted a CLIENT State. They did not "Conquer" Iran when they imposed the Shah on that regime but Iran was a client State that did the bidding of the US.
Empires in the past used the same tactics wherein they would send Militaries in, impose upon a country a leader friendly to their interests and then leave. If said country tried to do anything not in the best interests of that ruling power, they would send their Militaries in again.
For all intents and purposes this was "Conquered". Much Like the Old USSR with Poland, Hungary and Romania.
>>Agreed and the division constituted political *reality* at the time.
Only the political "reality" enforced upon them by foreign powers. This like claiming that because there was a France and a Vichy France when the Nazis were marching all over Europe , that the French were the ones that wanted that.
"The point is when people LEAVE a country for reasons of their own , they are not going to be praising that country."
I think we agree all along then, that thousands ans thousands of refugees left Vietnam for *good reason*. Good.
"If you must ask for a source, then this shows you are totally misinformed on Vietnam."
If you can't supply a source, just say so or don't say anything. It doesn't really matter to me why you don't source your claim, only that you don't. The statement remains unsupported."
"It was the USA who had troops there and were doing all of these things."
Oh yes, and there was no way that the NVA or VC did any of these things. Thousands of boat people risked dying on the high seas to escape similar atrocities, and this stuff continued long after the US was gone for good and only the communists ruled.
"The USA wanted a CLIENT State."
"For all intents and purposes this was "Conquered"."
You are entitled to believe this but it is entirely up to debate, and I don't agree that the two are the same at all.
"Only the political "reality" enforced upon them by foreign powers."
So? Reality "forced" is reality all the same. The North and South *really* did have armies in the field fighting each other. You can pretend that *really* didn't happen if you want.
JakeNewton inquires of GwNorth why he believes that "Ho would win the elections by an overwhelming margin." It is quite surprising that there is actually a debate about this. As Barbara Tuchman points out in her classic work The March of Folly:
"No one questioned that if the elections were held [in 1956], as one official reported, 'the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese would vote Communist'. In the course of a speech opposing equal status for a Communist regime, Senator John F. Kennedy acknowledged 'the popularity and prevalence' of Ho Chi Minh's party 'throughout Indochina'-which seemed to him reason NOT to allow its participation in a national government. Eisenhower, informed by advisers that Ho would certainly win the election, 'refused to agree' [according to General Ridgway] to its taking place." [p. 279]
Mr. Newton asks of me whether the U.S. intended to conquer Vietnam. As usual with so many Americans, Mr. Newton fails to place himself in the position of a Vietnamese who back then would have undoubtedly thought that the less than benevolent United States was out to take over their country. As Ms. Tuchman repeatedly notes in her book, the U.S. attempted to justify their presence in Vietnam by claiming that it was necessary to achieve and maintain their [so-called] "vital interests" or "strategic interests". Ms. Tuchman quotes Far East expert Edwin O. Reischauer who, when observing that U.S. support of the French was totally illogical, also pointed out that it showed "how absurdly wrong we are to battle Asian nationalism instead of aiding it."
Jake Newton correctly notes that the Vietnamese did not want the Soviets interfering in their affairs while placing very little emphasis upon the fact that the United States was doing the very same thing to that country. In another comment, Mr. Newton attempted to minimize the fact that 2 to 3 million Vietnamese and close to 60,000 Americans were killed for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever when that is exactly what the focus of Vietnam should be centered around which was the wanton and reckless slaughter of so many people which, as Barbara Tuchman accurately noted, ends up being the height of folly.
As a side note, JakeNewton does not help to advance but rather undermines his rather feeble arguments when he cannot even correctly spell my six letter name which, for JakeNewton's benefit, is spelled E R R O L L.
"if the elections were held [in 1956],"
I'm sorry, I was talking about Soviet backed columns brushing away South Vietnamese forces who actually no longer had US backing in the early *seventies*.
"the position of a Vietnamese who back then would have undoubtedly thought that the less than benevolent United States was out to take over their country."
Erroll *guesses* this to be so. Others guess differently.
"attempted to minimize the fact that 2 to 3 million Vietnamese and close to 60,000 Americans were killed"
Because this happened *before* the creation of thousands of refugees fleeing the communist forces and the additional millions of deaths, it is *irrelevant* to my point, but certainly not "minimal" in itself. I hope that is clear?
"he cannot even correctly spell my six letter name which, for JakeNewton's benefit, is spelled E R R O L L."
I'm sorry for that, but I am also sorry that you are choosing to focus on my spelling as if your own position is not very solid. That's usually why people do that. The question remains whether the US had designs on "conquering" Vietnam, but we do seem to agree about the millions dead and refugees created before the advancing columns in the early *seventies*.
jakenewton
Actually I believe my position to be quite solid. You keep insisting on focusing upon whether the United States intended to conquer Vietnam when, as I and others have attempted to point out numerous times, apparently to no avail, the much bigger issue, to myself and especially the Vietnamese, is that the United States had absolutely no legitimate reason sending in over 500,000 soldiers into that country and carpet bombing that country and using Agent Orange and napalm and cluster bombs on the people of Vietnam. To borrow a word from your comments, whether the U.S. was bent upon conquering Vietnam is totally irrelevant. What is most relevant is that the United States invaded and killed 2 to 3 million of its inhabitants, while maiming and crippling millions more of its citizens for, again, absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever. Vietnam, a third world country, was never a threat to the United States which means, of course, that the United States had no justifiable and legitimate reason to invade and massacre so many of the Vietnamese people.
I have attempted my best, to borrow from your comment, to make that as clear as possible. But you seem to believe that your issues, perhaps to feed your own self-aggrandizement, are bizarrely more important. Despite your denials, I still believe [no, jakenewton, not guess, but believe] that the Vietnamese hardly think that the slaughter of 2 to 3 million of their people by the United States was done with the best of intentions. You claim "others guess differently." It is quite doubtful if the average Vietnamese, whose family and friends were affected by the bellicose actions of the United States [such as birth defects from Agent Orange and their children being severely injured after picking up a cluster bomb], would agree with your patriotic statement.
I am sorry that you seem totally unable to empathize with the fact that the Vietnamese did absolutely nothing to warrant such carnage and destruction at the hands of the Americans. While you may believe that to be "irrelevant" I and the people of Vietnam certainly do not.
"You keep insisting on focusing upon whether the United States intended to conquer Vietnam"
Yes, I do specifically because I think it to be a gross mischaracterization of what we were doing there. That's all I was saying in my first post.
"the much bigger issue, to myself and especially the Vietnamese, is that the United States had absolutely no legitimate reason sending in over 500,000 soldiers into that country"
Whether it is really a bigger issue is irrelevant to whether the intent of the US was conquest. As it is, there were quite a few Vietnamese who welcomed the US in what they did.
"whether the U.S. was bent upon conquering Vietnam is totally irrelevant."
Not when one insists on mischaracterizing the motives of the US it is not. *That* is the issue I took up, *not* whether the US had legitimate reasons for sending troops etc.
"What is most relevant is that the United States invaded and killed "
Irrelevant to *what*? A *general* discussion of the war? I was not interested in any such discussion, and I have not tried to show you to be wrong in your position on that other than what the general intentions of the US were.
"But you seem to believe that your issues, perhaps to feed your own self-aggrandizement, are bizarrely more important."
It doesn't matter what I feel when I make the mischaracterization of US conquest an issue and it's ignored, while other issues I've expressed little interest in are discussed instead. That’s called “Changing the Subject”. The fact is that was the Soviet backed NVA that *actually succeeded* in *conquering* the Southern region, causing many deaths and refugees. If you don’t wish to discuss who was actually bent on conquest than don’t discusss the point, but don’t mix in other subjects as a substitute.
"It is quite doubtful if the average Vietnamese,"
Guessing once again. OTOH every single Vietnamese in the US I've ever talked to has stated that the communists were murderous, and expressed thanks that the US was involved, and dismay that the Democrats in Congress halted support just a little while before the NVA rolled in.
"I am sorry that you seem totally unable to empathize with the fact that the Vietnamese did absolutely nothing to warrant such carnage and destruction at the hands of the Americans."
Or from the NVA and VC. You keep forgetting their role don’t you. Or do you lack empathy for *those* victims?
One of the more bizarre conversations, if one can call it that, that I have encountered on the Internet especially coming from a progressive web site. What you insist on ignoring, time and time again, is that the United States had absolutely no right in invading Vietnam. You bring up the killings done by the NVA and the NLF [what you call the VC] as if that is somehow germane to the issue of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Vietnam. This is like saying because the United States enslaved African-Americans for over two hundred years and lynched them even after they were freed that that would then mean that a foreign power somehow had the right to invade and keep its troops onto the soil of the United States because of the transgressions that were done to African-Americans by the U.S. government.
Here is a news flash. The United States, nor any other country, has a right in invading and bombing the hell out of another country that has not posed any significant threat to that particular country. As I have attempted to state before on numerous occasions, Vietnam, a third world country, was never a threat to the most powerful country on earth. Nor should the United States, as evidenced by what is going on in the Middle East, consider itself to be the policeman of the world. After I had been in Vietnam, I finally came to the realization that the Vietnamese were simply defending their country from the invading force which, of course, was the American military. But you seem totally unable to grasp that concept which leads me to believe that any intelligent conversation with you simply ceases at this point.
"What you insist on ignoring, time and time again, is that the United States had absolutely no right in invading Vietnam."
I am *uninterested* in the above point, that is why I am ignoring it. We may even actually *agree* on it, or much of it, which would be one big reason I wouldn't be interested in discussing it with you.
"You bring up the killings done by the NVA and the NLF [what you call the VC] as if that is somehow germane to the issue of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Vietnam."
I would even agree it's not germane to the issue of whether the US was bent on conquest, which is the point I was trying to discuss with you. The reason I brought it up was because of your obvious asymetrical concern for dead civilians based on which side killed them. Yes, it is a side issue, but I guess it's on the table now if you wish to discuss it some more.
"This is like saying because the United States enslaved..."
Or like saying a refusal to hold an election in '56 had some great bearing or justification to the Soviet backed NVA *conquest* of the South in '75. There would be a stretch.
"The United States, nor any other country, has a right in invading and bombing"
The US has a right to recognize any government or regime and form an alliance with it, to include military aid if the parties agree. But that's not what we've been discussing.
great article! of course, every great point it makes is nowhere to be found in the so-called liberal media. all we hear is that obama's dithering endangers the troops. we hear 1984-like statements to the effect that we can make our boys and girls safe only by putting more boys and girls in harm's way. i was flabbergasted to hear for the first time that the taliban had actually made a peace proposal and that mullah omar had agreed to not interfere in matters not related to the afghans. have him sign the agreement, have our troops leave, and he can deal with our drones if he's later found to be lying. but then, if drones were the universal antidote for liars, we would have to have a whole new slate of candidates for our own elections next year!
great article! of course, every great point it makes is nowhere to be found in the so-called liberal media. all we hear is that obama's dithering endangers the troops. we hear 1984-like statements to the effect that we can make our boys and girls safe only by putting more boys and girls in harm's way. i was flabbergasted to hear for the first time that the taliban had actually made a peace proposal and that mullah omar had agreed to not interfere in matters not related to the afghans. have him sign the agreement, have our troops leave, and he can deal with our drones if he's later found to be lying. but then, if drones were the universal antidote for liars, we would have to have a whole new slate of candidates for our own elections next year!
>>But the MRAP was designed for Iraq, which has lots of good roads. Since Afghanistan has virtually no roads, the MRAPs broke down. Without the MRAPs the Strykers could not move. The "high-risk" mission ended up hunkering down in the desert for the night and slogging home in the morning. They never saw an insurgent.
Oh the Miracles of technology!! I wonder what these MRAPS that break down because they can not run off a road cost per copy.
So the largest killer of US forces are IEDS. The biggest problem with IEDS is that you have to know what route your enemy will take so you can plant them beforehand.
So what does this Hi-tech greatest Military in the History of the world do?
They build Vehicles that only work when there are roads.
All armor, I bet you have to have a fuel truck following it!
~~~~~~~
Details, details; it just so hard to keep up, finish one occupation and get it down pat, then you have to learn all over again. Push on, Push On.
"And further, the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, pledges that his organization will not interfere with Afghanistan's neighbors or the West, which suggests that the insurgents have been learning about diplomacy as well."
That seems to imply that the Taliban had in the past interfered with Afghanistan's neighbors or the West. But I'm not aware of any such cases. When did the Taliban ever interfere with their neighbors or the West? They haven't.
The most powerful military force the world has ever seen has to pay protection money to the local mafia. Interesting. Very interesting. Someone mentioned Milo Minderbinder. Fiction becomes reality. You can't make this stuff up. Maybe before we attack Venezuela from our new bases in Columbia we can pay Chavez to preposition a bunch of supplies and war materiel for us.
TWO AND TWO MAKE FIVE
Speaking of Venezuela and of USSA thieving,Hugo has sent 15000 troops to protect his highly coveted coltran.Coltran,necessary to make MISSILES,SATELITES,Computers cell phones and the other electronic necessities for MODERN CONSUMEROIDS.The largest Coltran deposits are in,you guessed it, Belgium Congo,where the poor buggers have been enduring genocidal plague/CIVIL WAR brought on by USSA CHICKENS IN ACTION.The new Columbian,seven military bases,especially,the odious Palanquero,schemed by the mutual brown tonquers Uribe and Obomba Robot,is an attempt to rule central and south america and especially Columbia/latin Israel,for a mere 46 million.(I wonder how much of that Uribe took for himself) Hugo appears for now,to be on top of it.A little momentum would have been felt in June when Zelaya was sent packing.The Chinese have long been flirting with Africa and South America, now are in a full blown courtship.Additionally,Obomba and his failed fawning of the Chinese may have signaled one of three things.
1-- Replacing the obliterated dollar to which China holds the key, would appear to be in the works,will another supposed currency crisis rear its head soon? Is the DOLLAR DEAD?,not a surprise,post pillaging by the elite.They no doubt sunk their haul into offshore banks in yuans and euros?
2--China and Russia and Iran have a major presence and growing, in South America right now and united states of Israel is hated there,could it be a little glich in the takeover scheme.
3---The Latin countries are hanging tight together against the big satan empire and welcoming their new friends ,CHINA/IRAN/RUSSIA.
We live in interesting times,if it were not for the sadism/torture/lies/wars eminating from the land of the free
You know you have lost the war when you have to give bribes to your enemy, namely the Taliban, not to attack your convoys and your supply routes. The most egregious thing: the Taliban will use these treasonous, bribes to purchase more weapons to kill our soldiers! Giving obesiance and our tax $ to your enemy that has vowed the perdition of our military; leaves one speechless.
C'mon, now. We could've destroyed the village in order to save it! Oops, My Lai!! GENERAL Calley, anyone? OR US GENERAL STRIKE?!
Dear Mr. President:
They used to die for Bush’s lies;
Now they die for yours.
You lie; another sucker dies.
It is the way of war.
Every U.S. fatality from Iraq and Afghanistan should have on his/her memorial stone: “Here lies one who died for lies—for NOTHING.”
Godistwaddle
Very well put. Robert Fantina drives that point home in his book Desertion and the American Soldier 1776-2006 when he quotes former Marine Dan Felushko, who deserted from his unit because, as he stated:
"I didn't want 'Died, deluded in Iraq', over my gravestone."
That same type of thinking should also be applied to those robots [make that soldiers] who are stationed in Afghanistan.
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy"
Henry Kissinger
Henry KISS MY ASS Kissinger "just dumb stupid animals to be used in foreign policy"
DESCRIBE YOURSELF WHY DON'T YOU!
Kissinger was wrong, given the distinct possibility of military coup.
Reading this article reminded me a lot of the daily newspaper dispatches during the catastrophe in Vietnam. Body counts, the light at the end of the tunnel and inevitable victory. By our count, we must have killed every living thing in Vietnam and yet still lost.
What a stupid, stupid country the United States truly is!
failure in Afghanistan is in the eyes of the beholder
as former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray noted last week: "US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, it's about oil, it's not about democracy."
so yes, Washington will still conveniently arm and finance "terrorists", our soldiers will die, innocent Afghans will continue to be obliterated by outsourced drones, opposition to this murderous occupation will mount, misery, fear and hatred will further proliferate. but these unwarranted abominations spell 'failure' only to the American taxpayers and regular citizens of the rest of the world. for the likes of Unocal, Halliburton, Lockheed and Blackwater, our government's crimminal takeover at their behest is a complete success
Precisely. Success or failure depends on the true intent of the mission one is attempting to accomplish. This is why, when referring to "major combat operations" in Iraq, George Bush's May 1, 2003 proclamation of "Mission Accomplished" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln may be the only truth he ever told the American people, as the real mission was indeed accomplished: permanent occupation.
Military operations have nothing to do with democracy, freedom, terrorism, communism, humanitarianism, or any other 'ism', which are all used as pretexts. On the contrary, war is always about undermining democracy to gain power and money through the expansion of markets for the elite American investor class at the expense and exploitation of everyone else. War achieves triumph for neo-liberal capitalism. Lost lives, destruction, misery, and suffering are considered the costs of doing business--costs that someone else has to pay. Capitalist oligarchs love this; they get to privatize all the profits while socializing all the risks, the very definition of success in the business of war.
Yes, it is about money. And the pipeline is important. But have you considered the possibility that re-establishing the opium/heroin trade was a major reason for going into Afganistan. The Taliban had shut this down. Money from the trade flows into NYC to be laundered and then it is invested. A very lucrative and important part of proping up a failing economy in the USA.
And encircling Iran! Don't forget we are drawing a ring around the country!
And dominating the Earth. Don't forget our long-term strategy: to deny potential competitors the opportunity to challenge our rule, via "full-spectrum dominance," space-based weapons, and encirclement not just of Iran but of Russia and China...
Gets hard to keep dreaming about this one, but plans seem to keep going forward - the reference to Alice in Wonderland in the above report is apt...
"And dominating the Earth"
How does the constant debasing of The Dollar support that aim?
jake (the dollar/the new peso) is probably DEAD at this point.The ramifications of the debased dollar are all around us.Dollar squalor.It can buy nothing these days.Invest in wheel barrows,after they print more of the monopoly money and hyper weimar style,inflation goes through the roof,the so called crisis/excuse will mean a NEW CURRENCY is the only way to save us from ourselves,meanwhile the elite absconded way back when,off to their money laundering havens and bought anything but DOLLARS and make a killing.The rest of the shlubs better get creative and the sooner the better.The entire world knows that we are bankrupt,easy peasy,PERPETUAL WAROCRACY.
IN DEBT WE TRUST.Aaron Russo.
"a NEW CURRENCY "
Commodity money? Euro? What's your bet?
That's a good question. It's one of the (many) reasons i wrote "Gets hard to keep dreaming about this one..."
The controling factors are the multi-national corporations so in the long run the USA is just another milk cow or more apt used car whose parts have been sold.