When We Kill Enough Canadians They Will Quit

[scribblet]

Don't know about you guys but this kind evil curls my hair - and I have to wonder, at the risk of being accused of bigotry or the like: Is Afghanistan (and Iraq) really worth dying for, when they evidently don't want freedom and democracy in any way shape or form. Sometimes I just think we (western world) should just walk away from them and let them go at it. Forget them, no trade, no aid, nothing - just walk away. Okay, I know, the average joe and Jill only wants what we want, but really, can we do anything about this and women's rights there at all, when it comes down it. Will they ever respect peace and rights and enter the 21st century?

It brings to mind a science fiction piece I read once. Alien spaceships (are there any other kind) arrive and hover over all major cities in the world e.g. New York, Tokyo, London, Toronto etc. cut a long story short, they stop the fighting and insist on peace - it happens .... Don't you just wish something like that could happen.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

When we kill enough ... they will quit'

Taliban spokesperson sees parliamentary debate as sign of weakness

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - As MPs gather in Ottawa to discuss Canada's more combative role in southern Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official and coalition commanders painted two disparate images Sunday of where the war is headed.

In a weekend interview with The Canadian Press, insurgent spokesman Qari Yuosaf Ahmedi said the Taliban are convinced the resolve of the Canadian people is weak.

As suicide attacks and roadside blasts increase, the public will quickly grow weary, he said.

"We think that when we kill enough Canadians, they will quit war and return home," Ahmedi said in an interview, conducted through a translator, over a satellite telephone.

Given the fact troops are already deployed, Ahmedi suggested Monday's House of Commons debate as a sign of indecision among Canadians.

In addition to his fire-breathing rhetoric, the Taliban's public relations spokesman claimed that the insurgency had recruited 180 suicide bombers for operations in and around Kandahar over the next few weeks.

[geoffrey]

So the debate is fueling the Taliban...

Hmm... I wonder if the NDP will admit they screwed up bigtime... again. I can't wait to see Layton standing up there saying "we won't follow George Bush anywhere!!! even if its the right thing to do!"

Stupid ideologue.

[sideshow]

LOL! Are we prepared to walk away from the oil, cheap labour, and other exploited resources as well?

[Hicksey]

Terrorists are like children. If you give them an inch of hope that they can beat you, they'll take a mile.

I guess the left never learned from their experience in Vietnam that when you undermine support for your troops in a war, troops die. But then again, they celebrated giving the enemy the will to fight and kill thousand of their own more soldiers.

Its no different today. Yes, the mission is dangerous. Yes, our troops are in harm's way cleaning up the Americans' mess--again. But the one thing you can never do is show weakness in battle. It will only serve to prolong the battle and in effect kill more soldiers.

If there's one thing Harper needs to say is that while we're discussing the issue that our committment to completing the mission at hand is as strong as ever. This is one case where words CAN save lives.

[Black Dog]

First: "insurgent spokesman"? WTF??

Second:

I guess the left never learned from their experience in Vietnam that when you undermine support for your troops in a war, troops die. But then again, they celebrated giving the enemy the will to fight and kill thousand of their own more soldiers.

I don't know if domestic opposition to war has any bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the war. Franly, I don't much care. Vietnam was a bad war, a tragic waste of lives. Afghanistan is a fool's errand, a pipe dream that's doomed to fail. Shutting down the debate won't change the fact that, if the mission fails, it's because it was a bad idea from the get go.

[Hicksey]

First: "insurgent spokesman"? WTF??

Second:

I guess the left never learned from their experience in Vietnam that when you undermine support for your troops in a war, troops die. But then again, they celebrated giving the enemy the will to fight and kill thousand of their own more soldiers.

I don't know if domestic opposition to war has any bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the war. Franly, I don't much care. Vietnam was a bad war, a tragic waste of lives. Afghanistan is a fool's errand, a pipe dream that's doomed to fail. Shutting down the debate won't change the fact that, if the mission fails, it's because it was a bad idea from the get go.

We can debate the war another time. The point being made here that obviously has been comfirmed by the insurgents is that pariliaments reconsideration of the mission is conceived as a show of weakness. When we send our troops out, whether or not I agree with the mission or not, we owe them all the support they can give. A show of weakness gives comfort and aid to the enemy. That doesn't mean once the mission is over that Harper for leaving them there, and the Liberals that committed them to be there cannot be taken to task. If the Canadian public hates the mission or keeping them there once the mission changed, let them judge with their votes.

More than enough troops are dying already. Giving the enemy reason to fight and kill more is NOT supporting our troops. We should not be politicizing their lives.

[Black Dog]

We can debate the war another time.

When? After it's over?

The point being made here that obviously has been comfirmed by the insurgents is that pariliaments reconsideration of the mission is conceived as a show of weakness.

So?

When we send our troops out, whether or not I agree with the mission or not, we owe them all the support they can give.

Rubbish. Look: dissent and debate are integral parts of life in this crazy thing we call democracy and I for one refuse to give them up to serve partisan ends.

A show of weakness gives comfort and aid to the enemy.

Who are the enemy and why are they the enemy? Whoops! Can't ask questions like that, lest I give aid and comfort to the enemy (whoever they are).

That doesn't mean once the mission is over that Harper for leaving them there, and the Liberals that committed them to be there cannot be taken to task. If the Canadian public hates the mission or keeping them there once the mission changed, let them judge with their votes.

Great. That will be very helpful to the people who die as a result of bad policy.

More than enough troops are dying already. Giving the enemy reason to fight and kill more is NOT supporting our troops. We should not be politicizing their lives.

Ah, but by saying we MUST support the mission, you are politicizing the troops' lives.

[Hicksey]

We can debate the war another time.

When? After it's over?

The point being made here that obviously has been comfirmed by the insurgents is that pariliaments reconsideration of the mission is conceived as a show of weakness.

So?

When we send our troops out, whether or not I agree with the mission or not, we owe them all the support they can give.

Rubbish. Look: dissent and debate are integral parts of life in this crazy thing we call democracy and I for one refuse to give them up to serve partisan ends.

A show of weakness gives comfort and aid to the enemy.

Who are the enemy and why are they the enemy? Whoops! Can't ask questions like that, lest I give aid and comfort to the enemy (whoever they are).

That doesn't mean once the mission is over that Harper for leaving them there, and the Liberals that committed them to be there cannot be taken to task. If the Canadian public hates the mission or keeping them there once the mission changed, let them judge with their votes.

Great. That will be very helpful to the people who die as a result of bad policy.

More than enough troops are dying already. Giving the enemy reason to fight and kill more is NOT supporting our troops. We should not be politicizing their lives.

Ah, but by saying we MUST support the mission, you are politicizing the troops' lives.

Given your opinion of people who would join the military, its not surprising to me you would take this viewpoint.

Regardless of what either of us think about our troops being over there, those troops are over there in harm's way. We DO owe THEM support. Because they volunteer, we're not drafted to do it against our will. I don't care who sent them there, or who's leaving them there. Sometimes the best support we can give our troops doesn't cost money at all.

[Black Dog]

Given your opinion of people who would join the military, its not surprising to me you would take this viewpoint.

Huh? I don't know what your basing this on, nor do I se the relevance to the subject.

Regardless of what either of us think about our troops being over there, those troops are over there in harm's way. We DO owe THEM support. Because they volunteer, we're not drafted to do it against our will. I don't care who sent them there, or who's leaving them there. Sometimes the best support we can give our troops doesn't cost money at all.

Y'know, under the normal run of things it's pretty much self-evident that, as citizens of a democracy, we are under no obligation to unconditionaly and unquestioningly support any government policy whatsoever. So why should this be any different? Not only am I not obligated to support the policy, I certainly don't owe the troops anything.

[Hicksey]

Given your opinion of people who would join the military, its not surprising to me you would take this viewpoint.

Huh? I don't know what your basing this on, nor do I see the relevance to the subject.

You once told me in debate they're a bunch of people fooled into giving their lives under the guise of patriotism and that the patriotism they feel is a scam being perpetuated on them by people who want to profit off their death.

Considering we're talking about supporting or not supporting soldiers in their missions, I think your view of a soldier is plenty relevant.

[Black Dog]

You once told me in debate they're a bunch of people fooled into giving their lives under the guise of patriotism and that the patriotism they feel is a scam being perpetuated on them by people who want to profit off their death.

Considering we're talking about supporting or not supporting soldiers in their missions, I think your view of a soldier is plenty relevant.

First: we're not talking about "supporting or not supporting soldiers in their missions", but supporting or not supporting the mission itself.

Second: I indeed said that "patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die". I still believe it. That doesn't mean I hope the folks who buy into it get killed on some ill-conceived foreign adventure. Quite the opposite.

[Hicksey]

You once told me in debate they're a bunch of people fooled into giving their lives under the guise of patriotism and that the patriotism they feel is a scam being perpetuated on them by people who want to profit off their death.

Considering we're talking about supporting or not supporting soldiers in their missions, I think your view of a soldier is plenty relevant.

First: we're not talking about "supporting or not supporting soldiers in their missions", but supporting or not supporting the mission itself.

Second: I indeed said that "patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die". I still believe it. That doesn't mean I hope the folks who buy into it get killed on some ill-conceived foreign adventure. Quite the opposite.

Sometimes, and this time seems to be one judging by the reaction of insurgents, supporting the soldiers in their mission and supporting the mission are one and the same. That doesn't mean that we have to be gung ho about the mission. But undermining it hurts them.

I too think that the war in there has been royally screwed up by Bush, that while a retalliatory strike against the Taliban was a necessary evil, but Iraq was not. But whatever I think about Bush and his mistakes, Chretien and his(he committed the troops to the mission at hand), I support the troops. I don't think this war is a good idea, but that now that its started it cannot be lost IMO.

If the neanderthals we're fighting against over there would have responded to the 17 attempts at diplomacy through the UN we wouldn't be where we're at.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear scriblett,

When we kill enough ... they will quit'

This is true. It is also exactly the philosophy they used on the Russians, who had invested much larger and more capable forces than Canada has.

When asked why the Afghanis were still fighting even when the Russians announced their intention to withdraw, one mujahideen leader (Abdul Haq, I believe, but I will check the source) replied, "The Russians are leaving because we keep killing them, so we will keep killing them until they leave."

For better or worse, no one has been able to impose an outside gov't, (or an 'inside one', for that matter) for some 500 years. How much time and effort should we spend trying to deliver an unwanted gift?

[Army Guy]

I'm alittle confused and have asked this question to others who believe that our present commitment to Afgan needs to be debated. WHY ?

Why do we need to debate a misssion that has already been approved by our government. or should i say previous governments dating back to MR Cretien... WHERE was everyone back then ? Did we not need to debate it because it was a Liberal directive ? Today everyone is just waking up NOW that we have been there for over 2 years and still have another 1.5 years to go we suddenily need to debate.

How many times do we need to debate this topic once a year, every 6 months or when ever a soldier comes home draped in a flag? In the military indecision is a sign of bad leadership, the time for debate is over, and will serve no purpose, If our government has the balls to send us over there then they should stand by the decissions, not second guess them every time a NDP, or Liberal wants to make polictical pionts. And that is all this is about ....IF the Canadian People still today do not know about Afgan it is because they choose not to...Who many out there believe we should be debating something else say health care or education instead of going over old decissions.

[Black Dog]

Sometimes, and this time seems to be one judging by the reaction of insurgents, supporting the soldiers in their mission and supporting the mission are one and the same. That doesn't mean that we have to be gung ho about the mission. But undermining it hurts them.

Suppose for a second that all opposition to the Afghanistan policy ceased. Would that mean the troops would be in less danger? Would that somehow increase they chances of success of the mission? It seems to me that, of all the factors at play here, domestic support for the mission is the one with the least bearing on the actual result of the mission.

I also have to ask: if the mission and the troops are one and the same, and thus we can't debate the mission now, when is it permissible to do so?

[Black Dog]

This is true. It is also exactly the philosophy they used on the Russians, who had invested much larger and more capable forces than Canada has.

When asked why the Afghanis were still fighting even when the Russians announced their intention to withdraw, one mujahideen leader (Abdul Haq, I believe, but I will check the source) replied, "The Russians are leaving because we keep killing them, so we will keep killing them until they leave."

I wonder too how much public debate the Soviet Union had over their Afghan mission. I'm willing to bet you didn't see much dissent. Didn't seem to make a difference, though.

I'm alittle confused and have asked this question to others who believe that our present commitment to Afgan needs to be debated. WHY ?

Because we went into it with no debate. Because the nature of the mission is unclear (I'm sure most Caandians would be surprised to learn that the current deployment is under U.S. command). Because it's also unclear how our being in Afghanistan is in our interests.

How many times do we need to debate this topic once a year, every 6 months or when ever a soldier comes home draped in a flag? In the military indecision is a sign of bad leadership, the time for debate is over, and will serve no purpose, If our government has the balls to send us over there then they should stand by the decissions, not second guess them every time a NDP, or Liberal wants to make polictical pionts. And that is all this is about ....IF the Canadian People still today do not know about Afgan it is because they choose not to...Who many out there believe we should be debating something else say health care or education instead of going over old decissions.

Imagine if we applied the same principle to the rest of th epolitical decision making process. Why right away, Stephen Harper wouldn't have a platform. GST reduction? Uh uh: that decision was made we must stand by it. Scrubbing the gun registry? No time for second guessing! Kyoto? Well, we made a commitment and we must stand by it or face the ruin of our global reputation! And so on....

[Army Guy]

BD:

Suppose for a second that all opposition to the Afghanistan policy ceased. Would that mean the troops would be in less danger? Would that somehow increase they chances of success of the mission? It seems to me that, of all the factors at play here, domestic support for the mission is the one with the least bearing on the actual result of the mission.

Yes and NO, insurgent leaders do base thier strikes on public opinion. And will do so to maximism there results. The mission success depends on alot of things, the soldiers jobs over there, but also what and how the mission is percieved at home, IE Vietnam was not lost on the battle field but at home so Yes the home front plays a big role in the operation.

Before Canada agrees to the next mandate ? but then again the way we are going perhaps once a week...

[Black Dog]

Yes and NO, insurgent leaders do base thier strikes on public opinion. And will do so to maximism there results. The mission success depends on alot of things, the soldiers jobs over there, but also what and how the mission is percieved at home, IE Vietnam was not lost on the battle field but at home so Yes the home front plays a big role in the operation.

No insurgents abse their strikes on wher ethey will cause the most damage. Simply declaring public discussion of the mission to be verboten won't reduce the danger to the troops: from a purely operational standpoint, Canada's military can't take heavy losses. Ultimately, insurgencies are all about wearing teh enemy down.

Also: Vietnam was a losing proposition before public opinion turned against the war. Indeed, the public's opposition to that war grew out of the failures, they did not caus ethem. (Also: what of the Soviets and Afghanistan? In a rigid authoritarian society like the Soviet Union, it's unlikely public expressions of opposition to the war would ghave been tolerated, but they still lost.)

[Army Guy]

BD:

Because we went into it with no debate. Because the nature of the mission is unclear (I'm sure most Caandians would be surprised to learn that the current deployment is under U.S. command). Because it's also unclear how our being in Afghanistan is in our interests

Not true, the debate was held in parliment, and reported on TV, if Canadians had a problem they did not show any interest then, in fact they were glad we did'nt enter IRAQ and rathered the Afgan mission.

Yes the chain of command has the US at the top. but all deccisions regarding the deployment and use of CDN troops are approved by Canada.

How is it our interest in being in Dafur, or for that matter any deployment canada has taken in the last 20 years. other than trying to bring peace ,or rebuilding nations.

Imagine if we applied the same principle to the rest of th epolitical decision making process. Why right away, Stephen Harper wouldn't have a platform. GST reduction? Uh uh: that decision was made we must stand by it. Scrubbing the gun registry? No time for second guessing! Kyoto? Well, we made a commitment and we must stand by it or face the ruin of our global reputation! And so on....

Yes it would be nice once and awhile for a government to make a decision that was best for Canada not what is polictically motivated. To actually spend some time researching all of it then debate it in parliment from a postion of strength. would we still have GST you bet 28 bil a year...Gun registry not a chance, Kyoto not a chance.

[Black Dog]

Not true, the debate was held in parliment, and reported on TV, if Canadians had a problem they did not show any interest then, in fact they were glad we did'nt enter IRAQ and rathered the Afgan mission.

My understanding was Canada's Afghan deployment predated Iraq. As for why people didn't pay attention, I reckon most figured that once the Taliban were ousted, everyone would come home.

How is it our interest in being in Dafur, or for that matter any deployment canada has taken in the last 20 years. other than trying to bring peace ,or rebuilding nations

That's kind of my point. It's not in our interest. As for rebuilding nations: does that ever work?

Yes it would be nice once and awhile for a government to make a decision that was best for Canada not what is polictically motivated. To actually spend some time researching all of it then debate it in parliment from a postion of strength. would we still have GST you bet 28 bil a year...Gun registry not a chance, Kyoto not a chance.

In politics, everything is political. Stephen Harper's visit to Afghanistan? Political? His decision to allow a debate in Comons? Political. There's simply no way to separate politics from the issue.

[Army Guy]

BD:

No insurgents abse their strikes on wher ethey will cause the most damage. Simply declaring public discussion of the mission to be verboten won't reduce the danger to the troops: from a purely operational standpoint, Canada's military can't take heavy losses. Ultimately, insurgencies are all about wearing teh enemy down.

Yes damage is a major factor but then again so is picking a target in the area, and if hitting the Canadians will cause them to wain in thier support thats whom they will hit. And if the nation is not fully supportive of that mission and gains can be made or opinions swayed, then yes the troops may be put in danger.

And from a purely operational stand piont The Canadian public can not sustain heavy losses. And it will be a few more years before Losses effect the military, or the moral of our soldiers.

Also: Vietnam was a losing proposition before public opinion turned against the war. Indeed, the public's opposition to that war grew out of the failures, they did not caus ethem. (Also: what of the Soviets and Afghanistan? In a rigid authoritarian society like the Soviet Union, it's unlikely public expressions of opposition to the war would ghave been tolerated, but they still lost.)

Vietnam was a very winnable WAR from a military aspect , and it was public opinon that drove the governments support, in creating rules that could not posiable see a victory, but that is another debate. And yes even in Russia public opinon drove the government to pull out of Afgan. Public opinon plays a major factor in every conflict. Can't govern if your not in power and the people decide that..

[Black Dog]

Yes damage is a major factor but then again so is picking a target in the area, and if hitting the Canadians will cause them to wain in thier support thats whom they will hit. And if the nation is not fully supportive of that mission and gains can be made or opinions swayed, then yes the troops may be put in danger.

I think your ascribing an operational flexibility to the insurgents that just isn't there. The Afghani insurgency does not appear to be anywhere near as organized as the Iraq counterpart or even the insurgency that drove out the Soviets. There's no focus and it apppears to me that they are focussing on targets of opportunity. The most frequent targets of the insurgency so far are ANA forces or police because they are easier targets. It doesn't make sense to increase the number of confrontations with a superior force such as Canada's for such intangeible gains.

And from a purely operational stand piont The Canadian public can not sustain heavy losses. And it will be a few more years before Losses effect the military, or the moral of our soldiers.

There's what, 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan? Of those, I expect only a fraction would be frontline combat troops. I don't think that leaves us with a very high capacity to absorb casualties.

Vietnam was a very winnable WAR from a military aspect , and it was public opinon that drove the governments support, in creating rules that could not posiable see a victory, but that is another debate. And yes even in Russia public opinon drove the government to pull out of Afgan. Public opinon plays a major factor in every conflict. Can't govern if your not in power and the people decide that.

I disagree that Vietnam was a winnable war in the sense of acheiving the original objectives. As for Afghanistan, public oppossition was there, yes, but was also ruthlessly repressed. Public opposition to the war in its later years focused the people's discontent with the system and eventually led to its downfall, but Afghanistan was a military defeat, plain and simple.

[Army Guy]

BD:

My understanding was Canada's Afghan deployment predated Iraq. As for why people didn't pay attention, I reckon most figured that once the Taliban were ousted, everyone would come home.

No, it all happened at the same time, The liberals picked Afgan because at the time it was suppose to be a UN mission, and it was for a few months, until the insurgents became a bigger problem. and the liberals had already stated they did not support the invasion of iraq. Afgan was a comprimise "in my opinon".

That's kind of my point. It's not in our interest. As for rebuilding nations: does that ever work?

That depends how much value we as Canadians put on saving lives. And if we are not in the business of helping those that we can help why are so many canadians so bent on our myth of our peace keeping role.

In politics, everything is political. Stephen Harper's visit to Afghanistan? Political? His decision to allow a debate in Comons? Political. There's simply no way to separate politics from the issue.

SO what you are saying is we as Canadians did'nt vote for leader we voted for a good polition. and that the two are not the same. I was hoping Harpers vist to Afgan was to vist the troops and to educate himself first hand, as for the debate, if the oposition wants to chase a debate that will solve nothing, gain nothing, with nothing as an outcome , then perhaps Harper can prove that it is a waste of time to the tax payers.

Because that is what this post is all about is it not.

What i have a hard time with is that this debate will accomplish nothing, Canada has already commited until late 2007, like it or not we will be there until then, unless there is another election and even then to pull out our troops is not an over night thing. And will take over 6 months to do. It's to early to debate after 2007 so WHY....

Canadians did not even blip when the liberals sent us over, not a word,,,no calls for debates no nothing...Now we might think "holy shit" we sent those poor bastards over there with out knowing why....

some 2 years later...hold the phones ...get me the media were going to have a debate....

SO when we finally get our shit together and decide what we are going to do....what do we tell those dead soldiers families "sorry but your sons sacrifice is not worth a pinch of coon shit".... What do we tell those that are over there today...Sorry we have decided Afgan has no Canadian interests your efforts are for nothing because we could not make up our mind....

[Black Dog]

No, it all happened at the same time, The liberals picked Afgan because at the time it was suppose to be a UN mission, and it was for a few months, until the insurgents became a bigger problem. and the liberals had already stated they did not support the invasion of iraq. Afgan was a comprimise "in my opinon".

Canada first deployed troops to Afghanistan in February 2002. Iraq didn't come to a head until later that year. But there's the chance that Canada knew of the U.S.'s intention vis a vis Iraq before then. In such a case, that would be another knock against the current deployment.

That depends how much value we as Canadians put on saving lives. And if we are not in the business of helping those that we can help why are so many canadians so bent on our myth of our peace keeping role.

Beats me.

What i have a hard time with is that this debate will accomplish nothing, Canada has already commited until late 2007, like it or not we will be there until then, unless there is another election and even then to pull out our troops is not an over night thing. And will take over 6 months to do. It's to early to debate after 2007 so WHY....

True enough, I suppose. But I maintain that there's no reason not to have a debate, as the debate we have now could well infomr our decisions down the road.

Canadians did not even blip when the liberals sent us over, not a word,,,no calls for debates no nothing...Now we might think "holy shit" we sent those poor bastards over there with out knowing why....

some 2 years later...hold the phones ...get me the media were going to have a debate....

I'm sensing a great deal of disdain for the public here. But let's not forgeta lot can change in 3 years. Bck then, there was still the strong belief that democracy could flourish in the Middle east and Afghanistan with a little help. Now the picture looks far less certain. I think flexibility is important: "resolve" is all wel and good, but there's a fine line between resolve and obstinance.

[Army Guy]

BD:

I think your ascribing an operational flexibility to the insurgents that just isn't there. The Afghani insurgency does not appear to be anywhere near as organized as the Iraq counterpart or even the insurgency that drove out the Soviets. There's no focus and it apppears to me that they are focussing on targets of opportunity. The most frequent targets of the insurgency so far are ANA forces or police because they are easier targets. It doesn't make sense to increase the number of confrontations with a superior force such as Canada's for such intangeible gains.

They may not be as organized as thier Iraqi counterpart , but they are picking out targets and nations , IED's are placed days in advance on road net works that are frequently used by many nations. Vehicle recongntion is not that hard. As for them increasing confrontations with little gain the last Canadian soldier was killed while defending an outpost from being over run by large numbers of insurgents. Does it make sense NO, in Fact i've said it would not happen but it did...and it has happened more than once in different sectors. But if they can convince one nation to leave because of deaths then it would be a major victory on thier part and a major blow to moral of the remaining coalition forces.

There's what, 2,300 Canadian troops in Afghanistan? Of those, I expect only a fraction would be frontline combat troops. I don't think that leaves us with a very high capacity to absorb casualties.

Most postions over there have replacements in Canada, it's built into the training, more are trained than needed to replace losses, be it from combat or breaking a leg etc...replacements can be on the ground in a couple days...

I disagree that Vietnam was a winnable war in the sense of acheiving the original objectives. As for Afghanistan, public oppossition was there, yes, but was also ruthlessly repressed. Public opposition to the war in its later years focused the people's discontent with the system and eventually led to its downfall, but Afghanistan was a military defeat, plain and simple.

So not engaging north Vietnam did not have an effect on the war. "a polictical decision" do you think that the US if allowed to engage in both ground and air campaigns in north Vietnem would have lost.

Russia's defeat in Afgan was again caused by polictions restricting the military in using it's full might.