Afghanistan

Fortunata · February 3, 2007

One of the criticisms of the Vietnam war is that locations were taken, abandoned and then had to be retaken leading to unnecessary deaths. We see this in Iraq and Afghanistan. During WWII Germany occupied all towns, cities, strategic points immediately after these were conquered as did the Allies after the war. That is the strategy that should be employed - occupation lessens the chance of insurgents building up their numbers to danger point. Of course that would mean more troops, which has been pointed out as one of the US's major mistakes in Iraq.

jbg · February 3, 2007

That is the strategy that should be employed - occupation lessens the chance of insurgents building up their numbers to danger point. Of course that would mean more troops, which has been pointed out as one of the US's major mistakes in Iraq.

We rely on indigenous troops, perhaps too much. Maybe some politicians are afraid of being called "colonialist" by left-wingers.

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

We rely on indigenous troops, perhaps too much. Maybe some politicians are afraid of being called "colonialist" by left-wingers.

You don't need any indigenous troops if you have an army of two to three million or more. Perhaps Bush will re-institute the draft for overseas service if he decides to take on North Korea, Iran and Syria this year.

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

I don't think there will be a draft or an attack on any of those places. Afghan troopa are a prob, they need to be bribed to do many things, LOC is a comletly foreign concept to them. They need to be trained to western standards, tjhis is going to take time.

The notion of leaving a town unguarded, at the mercey of the talibs is a major prob. Only more troops can eleviate that prob.....

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

I don't think there will be a draft or an attack on any of those places. Afghan troopa are a prob, they need to be bribed to do many things, LOC is a comletly foreign concept to them. They need to be trained to western standards, tjhis is going to take time.
The notion of leaving a town unguarded, at the mercey of the talibs is a major prob. Only more troops can eleviate that prob.....

If the British or anyone else could leave troops in place so that they could stabilize the area, I'm sure they would.

I agree that the Afghan troops are responsible for a lot of extortion and aren't trusted by people. I don't know how easy it will be to overcome tribalism in Afghanistan when it still happens in Canada as well.

As far as Bush not attacking Iran, that remains to be seen.

jbg · February 3, 2007

You don't need any indigenous troops if you have an army of two to three million or more. Perhaps Bush will re-institute the draft for overseas service if he decides to take on North Korea, Iran and Syria this year.

You use two to three million troop armies to defend the UK or Canada, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

You use two to threem million troop armies to defend the UK or Canada, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

So you think that there are plenty of troops in a place like Iraq to do the job?

jbg · February 3, 2007

You use two to threem million troop armies to defend the UK or Canada, not Afghanistan or Iraq.

So you think that there are plenty of troops in a place like Iraq to do the job?

Even if the pacification mission isn't totally successful, the Saddams of the world have an object lesson as to what can happen if you play fast and loose.

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

IF, and I very much doubt it, but IF he went for Iran it would be a massif crippling airstrike. Hundreds of cruise missiles, stealth bomber raids, perhaps an EMP attack, etc.. It would be over within an hour.

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

Now Hillery, she would go for them, no doubt!!

madmax · February 3, 2007

Even if the pacification mission isn't totally successful, the Saddams of the world have an object lesson as to what can happen if you play fast and loose.

Are you certain you didn't mean, the Bush's of the world have an abject lesson as to what can happen if you play fast and loose?

I don't think dictators are nearly as worried about being toppled today as they were shortly before the Iraqi invasion. Infact,none appear to shaking in their boots, and rogue nations are now actively developing and testing nuclear weapons at an accellorated pace.

Even the displaced Taliban, isn't shaking in their boots....

Don't use a failed invasion/occupation as a measure of huffing and puffing, as if this is producing good manners from rogue states... OR ELSE!!!! :angry:

jbg · February 3, 2007

IF, and I very much doubt it, but IF he went for Iran it would be a massif crippling airstrike. Hundreds of cruise missiles, stealth bomber raids, perhaps an EMP attack, etc.. It would be over within an hour.

My pet theory of warfare, at least in modern times, is that is the only way to win a war. Attempting to fight in stutter-stop manner, i.e. fight, negotiate, wait for intermediaries, etc. is unproductive, and winds up with greater human costs than doing it fast, even if that brings more collateral damage.

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

Even if the pacification mission isn't totally successful, the Saddams of the world have an object lesson as to what can happen if you play fast and loose.

I was going to say the same thing about Bush playing it fast and loose with the facts and use it to invade another country.

You think the mission has been successful thus far?

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

I think people are more interested in seeing the USA fail in Iraq that in really doing anyhting about rouge states.

Lets be honest, many nations profit from the sales they make to rouge states. I the entire world spoke with one voice against they N Korea's & Irans of the world this would not be a problem for long. There is too much $$ to be made for the likes of Iran, N Korea, Syria. They feel threatened by the USA, Russia, China and even France are there to sell there wares.

People here are going to say, "yes but the USA did it too", yes I know. There is too much profit to be made from the madmen of the world...

jbg · February 3, 2007

I don't think dictators are nearly as worried about being toppled today as they were shortly before the Iraqi invasion. Infact,none appear to shaking in their boots, and rogue nations are now actively developing and testing nuclear weapons at an accellorated pace.
Even the displaced Taliban, isn't shaking in their boots....

They should be.

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

IF, and I very much doubt it, but IF he went for Iran it would be a massif crippling airstrike. Hundreds of cruise missiles, stealth bomber raids, perhaps an EMP attack, etc.. It would be over within an hour.

No doubt. But as I said about Iraq, how would the peace be won?

jbg · February 3, 2007

I don't think dictators are nearly as worried about being toppled today as they were shortly before the Iraqi invasion. Infact,none appear to shaking in their boots, and rogue nations are now actively developing and testing nuclear weapons at an accellorated pace.

Even the displaced Taliban, isn't shaking in their boots....

They should be.

The US could take the position that it isn't our problem. It could be that the Marshall Plan gave other countries unrealstic expectations of US generosity.

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

My pet theory of warfare, at least in modern times, is that is the only way to win a war. Attempting to fight in stutter-stop manner, i.e. fight, negotiate, wait for intermediaries, etc. is unproductive, and winds up with greater human costs than doing it fast, even if that brings more collateral damage.

So, a war should be fought with the intent to eliminate all of the population to avoid pacification later on?

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

I think people are more interested in seeing the USA fail in Iraq that in really doing anyhting about rouge states.
Lets be honest, many nations profit from the sales they make to rouge states. I the entire world spoke with one voice against they N Korea's & Irans of the world this would not be a problem for long. There is too much $$ to be made for the likes of Iran, N Korea, Syria. They feel threatened by the USA, Russia, China and even France are there to sell there wares.

People here are going to say, "yes but the USA did it too", yes I know. There is too much profit to be made from the madmen of the world...

I personally am not interested in seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq. I just don't see how they were going to win it based on faith alone.

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

I am not Iraq expert, but maybe it is time to break that country up. It's a product of the post WW1 carving up of the Turk-Ottoman empire, it is aqn artificial country. Bring back Kurdistan, Mesopitamia etc. Partion Iraq, and split the oils revenues, give evry citizen a yearly oil dividen, so they all get something.

I would like to see the US pull out of 1 city, totally pull out, and see what happens. If it calms down, we may have solved the problem, start slowly withdrawing from every city back into Kuwait. If it does not work, go back in.

I think GW need to light a fire under the Iraq gov'ts butts too. This cannot go on forever.

I really fell Hillery would put the fear of God into Iran, she'sa Lib, but she is tough. I do not see her putting up with much of Irans crap for long...

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

I am not Iraq expert, but maybe it is time to break that country up. It's a product of the post WW1 carving up of the Turk-Ottoman empire, it is aqn artificial country. Bring back Kurdistan, Mesopitamia etc. Partion Iraq, and split the oils revenues, give evry citizen a yearly oil dividen, so they all get something.
I would like to see the US pull out of 1 city, totally pull out, and see what happens. If it calms down, we may have solved the problem, start slowly withdrawing from every city back into Kuwait. If it does not work, go back in.

I think GW need to light a fire under the Iraq gov'ts butts too. This cannot go on forever.

I really fell Hillery would put the fear of God into Iran, she'sa Lib, but she is tough. I do not see her putting up with much of Irans crap for long...

Turkey had a secret all-Parliament meeting a few weeks ago based on the break-up scenario. I don't think they will stand for a Kurdish independent country on their border. They might invade. You can look that up if you want. A few analysts speculate such a thing might provoke them into doing it.

Likewise, Iran might take southern Iraq.

As for putting a light under Iraq's butt, I think it has been done. Iraq is in a civil war situation. I don't think you can stop any more than you could stop the American civil war or the French Revolution.

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

A war, any war you enter into, you should enter into to win. If you believe in your cause so much you are willing to fight, you have to win. You win wars with OVERWHELMING FORCE!! It is simple. That does not n]mean a free for all slaughter, no.

It means you show up with a well trained, very well equipped and excellently lead army, and you compltely destroy the other army. Overwhelming force, you do not give them 1 second the breathe until the surrender. Then you treat them according to the Geneva Convention, you pacify & befriend them, as we did with Germany & Japan after WW2.

It works. No half measures...

weaponeer · February 3, 2007

Why would Turkey object to Kurdistan. you ahve a meeting of the mind, Turkey, the US & the Kurds, spell it out, this land will be Kurdistan (northern Iraq), the Kurds WILL NOT try and expand into Turkey. Any Turk-Kurds that want, now have ahomeland. The US will guarantee the security of both Turkey (which it does through NATO) and Kurdistan. Kurds will be reliant on US aid, that keeps them in check.

Southern Iraq, base a lage US Army ground force Kuwait, like Germany in the Cold War, and let Iran know in NO uncertain terms what happens if they go into Iraq. Partion Iraq between the Sunni's & Shiittes.

Again, I am NO expert on these matters, just throwing something out there.

The only other option id to pull out, and let the civil war takes it's natural course. Eventually someone will win...

jdobbin · February 3, 2007

Why would Turkey object to Kurdistan. you ahve a meeting of the mind, Turkey, the US & the Kurds, spell it out, this land will be Kurdistan (northern Iraq), the Kurds WILL NOT try and expand into Turkey. Any Turk-Kurds that want, now have ahomeland. The US will guarantee the security of both Turkey (which it does through NATO) and Kurdistan. Kurds will be reliant on US aid, that keeps them in check.
Southern Iraq, base a lage US Army ground force Kuwait, like Germany in the Cold War, and let Iran know in NO uncertain terms what happens if they go into Iraq. Partion Iraq between the Sunni's & Shiittes.

Again, I am NO expert on these matters, just throwing something out there.

The only other option id to pull out, and let the civil war takes it's natural course. Eventually someone will win...

I'm just telling you what happened a few weeks ago. Turkey does not want a Kurdish homeland on their border. Kurds in southern Turkey want a greater Kurdistan to extend into Turkey.

It is quite complicated but suffice to say that Turkey has crossed the border a few times to attack the Kurds in northern Iraq. The only thing to hold them back has been the U.S. If Iraq was broken up, nothing would stop them though.