Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[Argus]

No, but mere observation of these things doesn't help us much. If we're involved in military action in the area, it would be nice to know that there's a long-term vision for resolution too.

I think that's futile. The Americans tried to go that route by setting up 'democratic' governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think all we're mostly doing there is weeding. You know there will always be weeds in the garden, but so long as you tear them out from time to time you're okay. If you leave them alone the garden becomes overgrown, and soon all you have are weeds.

[Derek 2.0]

No, but mere observation of these things doesn't help us much. If we're involved in military action in the area, it would be nice to know that there's a long-term vision for resolution too.

*cough* Energy Independence *cough*

[Michael Hardner]

I think that's futile. The Americans tried to go that route by setting up 'democratic' governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was that - ten years ago ? How many times should we expect that to fail before a balance is endorsed by the people ?

[Argus]

What was that - ten years ago ? How many times should we expect that to fail before a balance is endorsed by the people ?

The people still see themselves as separate tribes, and will only vote for leaders from their tribe. I don't see that changing for generations, and that's generations with good education, which they're most unlikely to get.

[eyeball]

The inherent idea that the region is cursed with violence raises the question of why.

The planet is cursed with a bunch of sphincters would be my guess.

Edited December 28, 2014 by eyeball

[eyeball]

it would be nice to know that there's a long-term vision for resolution too.

*cough* Energy Independence *cough*

It would be even nicer to know we didn't bugger up so many peoples that are renowned for the long-term view they have towards vengeance - that said, to listen to some of you characters we're still punishing Islam for things it committed over 1000 years ago against the west. The blow back from the last century will probably last even longer.

Edited December 28, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

the similarities between the Troubles and GWOT have been cited by the leadership of the British army and the combined successes (and failures) of both campaigns are not only being taught to future generations in Sandhurst, but West Point and the IDF General Staff and Command Collage............But since you feel different, I'll leave it at that.

The British (and their allies) use the Troubles as a "template" for counter-insurgency training because they didn't have a large sample of recent experiences to work with. While there are similarities and certainly lessons to draw from the Troubles, you're drawing a pretty broad picture to conclude that the fighting in Northern Ireland and Helmand province were similar. By virtually all accounts, the British were not adequately prepared for the fighting in Helmand despite their experience in Ulster and the supposed similarities.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

The inherent idea that the region is cursed with violence raises the question of why. And is the region that different from, say, Europe where such clashes continue to the present era ?

Simple geography is a source of a lot of the violence. The name of the region itself demonstrates this. The Middle East is a point of convergence for three continents and a wide array of cultures, ethnicities and traditional spheres of influence. The Balkan and Caucusus regions share these similarities and the predictably chronic tensions. Add the fact that the Middle East was the birthplace of numerous major religions and you add fuel to the fire.

It's fatalistic to think that human relationships can't be stabilized in this area, as it has been to various degrees in other areas.

Nobody said they couldn't, but it's silly to believe these regions wouldn't be troubled without recent western/imperial/colonial interference.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

Simple geography is a source of a lot of the violence. The name of the region itself demonstrates this. The Middle East is a point of convergence for three continents and a wide array of cultures, ethnicities and traditional spheres of influence. The Balkan and Caucusus regions share these similarities and the predictably chronic tensions.

You make a good case for the influence of geography in this way.

it's silly to believe these regions wouldn't be troubled without recent western/imperial/colonial interference.

It's conjecture but still - would Afghanistan be in the state it is today without the Soviet invasion, for example ? It's not much of a leap to say it wouldn't.

Edited to add: there's also a case for historic cultural convergence happening, in which case it makes sense for these regions to represent the "front" of longstanding cultural differences between eastern and western societies. But it also means that there will be some kind of balance at some point.

North America was beset by many wars in the 19th century and it all turned out fine. ( The last part of that is tongue-in-cheek btw.)

[Derek 2.0]

The British (and their allies) use the Troubles as a "template" for counter-insurgency training because they didn't have a large sample of recent experiences to work with. While there are similarities and certainly lessons to draw from the Troubles, you're drawing a pretty broad picture to conclude that the fighting in Northern Ireland and Helmand province were similar. By virtually all accounts, the British were not adequately prepared for the fighting in Helmand despite their experience in Ulster and the supposed similarities.

The British have been doing counter-insurgency for centuries, with Operation Banner being the first major conflict fought within namely an urban environment.........the difference in preparation can be attributed to defense cuts within the 90s, coupled with the acute cultural and operational differences that can be found .........but as I said, my opinion is gleamed from the leadership of the British army, which held leadership roles in the three conflicts and has drawn the direct comparisons between the conflicts......your countering opinion is your opinion, of which I don't know (nor care) what you base it on.......

[eyeball]

The British have been doing counter-insurgency for centuries

One peoples insurgent is another peoples freedom-fighter.

I love how the Oxford English Dictionary defines insurgent as a rebel who is not a belligerent. Sure, as anyone can clearly see they're actually happy and festive.

I feel like I'm trapped in a Monty Python horror movie.

[Derek 2.0]

One peoples insurgent is another peoples freedom-fighter.

I love how the Oxford English Dictionary defines insurgent as a rebel who is not a belligerent. Sure, as anyone can clearly see they're actually happy and festive.

I feel like I'm trapped in a Monty Python horror movie.

Without a doubt, its clearly a mater in perspective.....

[eyeball]

Sure but consider how inverse the meaning that some of the terms and definitions that we use every day really are. When we use them so frequently and blithely we actually lose perspective.

Oxford's definition of insurgent speaks to a collectivized perspective and a misplaced concreteness that almost seems deliberate.

Edited December 29, 2014 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

It's conjecture but still - would Afghanistan be in the state it is today without the Soviet invasion, for example ? It's not much of a leap to say it wouldn't.

There's no question that the Soviet Union affected the area. It's not much of a leap, however, to say the region would have been a mess regardless. The powers of greater Persia, the Indian subcontinent and the asian Steppes have struggled for control of the area for thousands of years. The region's history is one of consistent back and forth conquest spanning 4000 years, with Afghans on occasion doing the conquering themselves.

Edited to add: there's also a case for historic cultural convergence happening, in which case it makes sense for these regions to represent the "front" of longstanding cultural differences between eastern and western societies. But it also means that there will be some kind of balance at some point.

Eventually, sure. How long and how much violence that takes is really the question, since there's a lot more going on than a simple East/West divide.

North America was beset by many wars in the 19th century and it all turned out fine. ( The last part of that is tongue-in-cheek btw.)

North America was perfectly suited for a speedy resolution. The British controlled the Sea and that's pretty much the end of the story. From that point on, their dominance of North America was unassailable, which ensured that their culture and way of life proliferated.

[Moonbox]

my opinion is gleamed from the leadership of the British army, which held leadership roles in the three conflicts and has drawn the direct comparisons between the conflicts......your countering opinion is your opinion, of which I don't know (nor care) what you base it on.......

You're missing the point. The context of the comparisons need to be considered. You and I both have two arms, two legs and a head, but would you say that we're similar people? Probably not.

Similarly, there were plenty of comparisons and similarities with Helmand and Ulster, but they still weren't similar conflicts. That military leaders made these comparisons and stated similarities also doesn't support your point. It just means that military leaders stated some similarities. My countering of your opinion is based on the poor results in Helmand Province along with all of the criticism of that mission from the Ministry of Defence, the Brig in charge of Helmand as well as the former Chief of Staff himself.

.the difference in preparation can be attributed to defense cuts within the 90s, coupled with the acute cultural and operational differences that can be found

You state that reasons for British unpreparedness result from cultural and operational differences, which is exactly what I'm talking about. Fighting in Ulster where half the people want you there is a lot different than Helmand, where everyone is Pashtun and hates you. As far as defense cuts go, common criticisms of the Helmand mission were the lack of heavy equipment and properly armored vehicles - things not necessary in Ulster.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

You're missing the point. The context of the comparisons need to be considered. You and I both have two arms, two legs and a head, but would you say that we're similar people? Probably not.

Similarly, there were plenty of comparisons and similarities with Helmand and Ulster, but they still weren't similar conflicts. That military leaders made these comparisons and stated similarities also doesn't support your point. It just means that military leaders stated some similarities. My countering of your opinion is based on the poor results in Helmand Province along with all of the criticism of that mission from the Ministry of Defence, the Brig in charge of Helmand as well as the former Chief of Staff himself.

And said criticisms were largely leveled against what/who? Once you understand that, then you'll understand the acute difference between the British efforts in Northern Ireland and the GWOT..........as pointed out by British Army leadership and myself several pages back, this of course being the reason for the two differing end (presumptive) results...

You state that reasons for British unpreparedness result from cultural and operational differences, which is exactly what I'm talking about. Fighting in Ulster where half the people want you there is a lot different than Helmand, where everyone is Pashtun and hates you. As far as defense cuts go, common criticisms of the Helmand mission were the lack of heavy equipment and properly armored vehicles - things not necessary in Ulster.

Ahh not quite.......Cultural and operational differences found within the British populace between present day and a generation+ ago, which in turn (as I spoke to several pages back) equate to a reduction in political capital...

[Moonbox]

And said criticisms were largely leveled against what/who? Once you understand that, then you'll understand the acute difference between the British efforts in Northern Ireland and the GWOT.

They were leveled against themselves and against each other. You'll have to explain your point, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

as pointed out by British Army leadership and myself several pages back, this of course being the reason for the two differing end (presumptive) results...

No, the British Army leadership essentially said they weren't ready for Helmand. They made naive assumptions about the mission and went in with insufficient numbers and equipment. This was all compounded by their failure to gather good intelligence which, depending on who's talking, was some combination of inadequate/conflicting/terrible.

Ahh not quite.......Cultural and operational differences found within the British populace between present day and a generation+ ago, which in turn (as I spoke to several pages back) equate to a reduction in political capital...

Right, and the cultural and operational differences in Afghanistan were no big deal....

[Derek 2.0]

They were leveled against themselves and against each other. You'll have to explain your point, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

No, the British Army leadership essentially said they weren't ready for Helmand. They made naive assumptions about the mission and went in with insufficient numbers and equipment. This was all compounded by their failure to gather good intelligence which, depending on who's talking, was some combination of inadequate/conflicting/terrible.

Right, and the cultural and operational differences in Afghanistan were no big deal....

As I said to you already:

Of course the British are still in Northern Ireland and the PIRA have halted their "guerilla war" aimed at creating a United Ireland.......The British brought about a ceasefire with the PIRA/Sinn Fein by being as nasty (in some cases more so) then the "terrorists", in effect, sapping the political will of those that supported the terrorists themselves........Hearts and Minds fans need not apply.

In essence, the West started fighting the GWOT with kid gloves.......and that be were many of the initial problems derived from.

As I've said, the difference being, in Northern Ireland the British were more concerned with winning the actual conflict as opposed to the "hearts and minds" of the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan..........

[eyeball]

The West is fighting the GWOT without a clue because it fought the Cold War wearing blinders.

[Moonbox]

As I've said, the difference being, in Northern Ireland the British were more concerned with winning the actual conflict as opposed to the "hearts and minds" of the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan..........

You saying so doesn't make it true. The differences between Northern Ireland and the GWOT go far beyond the lack of ruthlessness and resolve of the British people. They've been explained not just by me but also by the British military.

Also, the idea that the British needed to bring more nastiness to 'win' in Afghanistan flies contrary to all the past experiences in the area proving how ineffective it would have been. Soviet ruthlessness failed magnificently in the 80's, and back in the 1800 and 1900's the British (who had not yet developed their sensitive sensibilities), found that attempts at ruthless subjugation (like obliterating villages from the air) did little more than stir the hornet's nest.

[Derek 2.0]

You saying so doesn't make it true. The differences between Northern Ireland and the GWOT go far beyond the lack of ruthlessness and resolve of the British people. They've been explained not just by me but also by the British military.

Also, the idea that the British needed to bring more nastiness to 'win' in Afghanistan flies contrary to all the past experiences in the area proving how ineffective it would have been. Soviet ruthlessness failed magnificently in the 80's, and back in the 1800 and 1900's the British (who had not yet developed their sensitive sensibilities), found that attempts at ruthless subjugation (like obliterating villages from the air) did little more than stir the hornet's nest.

Why did the British Government remove British combat forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the end of hostilities?

[GostHacked]

Why did the British Government remove British combat forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the end of hostilities?

They were needed to go into places like Libya.

[Moonbox]

Why did the British Government remove British combat forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the end of hostilities?

In terms of Afghanistan, it was because nobody wanted them there (unlike in Ulster), nobody wanted to be there (unlike in Ulster) and it was prohibitively expensive to stay (unlike in Ulster). Additionally, hundreds of years of past experience ranging back as far as Alexander to the more recent British and Soviet attempts at pacification, have made it clear that fighting a popular insurgency in Afghanistan is about as smart as fighting a land war with Russia.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

In terms of Afghanistan, it was because nobody wanted them there (unlike in Ulster), nobody wanted to be there (unlike in Ulster) and it was prohibitively expensive to stay (unlike in Ulster). Additionally, hundreds of years of past experience ranging back as far as Alexander to the more recent British and Soviet attempts at pacification, have made it clear that fighting a popular insurgency in Afghanistan is about as smart as fighting a land war with Russia.

Are you suggesting that not one segment of the Afghan population wanted the British/West there? Also that the reason the British left the region was because of cost? (Your costings are fantasy I might add)

Are you stating British public opinion and in turn British domestic politics didn't play into the the withdrawal of forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan???

[Moonbox]

Are you suggesting that not one segment of the Afghan population wanted the British/West there?

You're being disingenuous and semantic. The British were not wanted in Pasthun-dominated Helmand province. Whether I said nobody or hardly anybody doesn't materially affect the statement.

Also that the reason the British left the region was because of cost? (Your costings are fantasy I might add)

First, if you're going to link material in your statements, at least provide some commentary for them. If you're going to go through the trouble of citation, taking 30 seconds to explain your citation's content/relevance is a pretty reasonable expectation.

Second, yes, cost was one of the reasons the British left Afghanistan (same with the Americans and the Canadians). If the costs exceed the perceived benefits of the mission, it's unlikely to continue.

Are you stating British public opinion and in turn British domestic politics didn't play into the the withdrawal of forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan???

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there were reasons that public opinion turned against them, and a lot of that had to do with how long, how deadly, how expensive, and how unsuccessful the campaign was.