PART ONE OF REPLY
No need to apologize for the reference, and I won’t apologize for getting in the face of anyone who deserves it.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
You don’t think the only people allowed to have an opinion of issues of war and peace should be active duty personnel and vets do you? That is not the way Democracy is supposed to work, bro- maybe you ought to take a few political science courses after all.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Furthermore, I had to take my chances in the 1969 Draft lottery, same as everyone.
I had a college deferment 1967-1969, and I agree such deferment is a travesty since it places a life-and-death burden of risk on some but not others.
The 1960s job market was the best in history, and it was still cresting when I got out in 1971. Plus with grades like mine finding a job was never a problem. Plus EnglishLit-PolSci would have been fine for Law School. Plus back then grades were a surer sign of critical thinking ability because all tests were essay question: no multiple choice questions, as in not one in four years for me. Ergo I have a few bragging rights to take.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
I commend your efforts to continue your education. However, either the curriculum or your study habits are deficient because you do not have a clear view of the issues at stake in Afghanistan 2001-present.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Here is what I said, and you are doing nothing but confirming it in this thread:Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
"you are oblivious to the fact that the people who planned 9/11 were based in Afghanistan"
And no, knowing what year something happened does not mean you know enough about it otherwise to form a reasonable opinion about anything, and neither does guard duty.
Previously addressed.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Totally incorrect.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Here, according to the US Army, is what Taliban controlled:
Afghanistan 10/01: Strategic Setting
(from link, emphasis added):
…Most of the country was under Taliban control by 2001 except for some small areas held by Northern Alliance forces in the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul and a few scattered pockets of resistance in the northwest of the country…
I’ll say there’s a big difference!- Milosevic was an out-of-the-way local small-fry whereas AQ had been attacking us all over the world for years, and Taliban was in 2001 providing them with what was by far the most secure base they ever had.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Just to clue you in to the point I was making, though: once you have an certified homicidal maniac under control it is usually a good idea to keep him under control, right? Especially if you personally are 100% sure to be at the top of the maniac’s victim list once he gets loose.
You mean your attention span can’t take it.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
PART TWO OF REPLY
Off-topic because what I obviously meant was that more force should have been committed at the start.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
How could more ground troops have helped? Man, that’s a tough one!Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
I guess I just have to fall back on the premise that more troops are better than less troops for carrying out most missions. I think it is safe to say there is no reason 2001 Afghanistan might be an exception to that premise.
You think less troops would have had a better chance of interdicting OBL on his way to Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him while he was on Tora Bora? You think less troops would have had a better chance of nailing him before he got to Pakistan?
I am not talking about supplying two million people for two years like we did during the Berlin Airlift (ever hear about that one, Bro?- tells us about what kind of things we can do with a real can-do attitude like the one you are supposed to have). I am talking about supplying additional ground forces of less than one Division in number for about 2-4 months Oct-Dec 2001.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
I can’t believe I am hearing this “taxing” sh*t from a US Marine. OMG! Mountainous terrain! We’re licked!Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
I have been a history buff since grade school (20 years before the cable TV era) and I probably knew more history than you do now before I got to college.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Now you are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental military concepts of strategic offence and strategic defense. If that is the best you can do then you must have received some kind of social promotion to have gotten through those continuing education courses of yours.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
I don’t think I have ever watched an entire HC program. Probably what you grew up on, though, eh?Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Any time you want to compare bibliographies let me know. I can start with Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1245p, read in HS), or, if you prefer something more strictly military, Werth’s Russia at War (1136p).
Korea was a crystal mystic perfection of a just war against a invasive aggressor. It turned out not merely well but great for the now prospering people of South Korea, who would otherwise be laboring in unimaginable torment under the rule of the loathsome NK Communist party. Korea and Viet Nam both began as strategic defensives.Originally Posted by MarineTpartier
Somalia was a mistake, but not a neocon mistake (you remember who was POTUS then, don’t you?)
Iraq II was also crystal mystic perfection of a just war, even though there were no WMB, against a man who had started two wars and who was the serial murderer of his own people. The ~65% voter turnout for the 1st ever elections showed that a clear majority of the Iraqi people DID WANT FREEDOM. THEY STILL DO. Unfortunately terrorist-criminal elements of the remaining 35% have been ruthless enough to deny the majority their longed-for peace, so the practical benefits of our just war have gone tragically unrealized.
And I see we keep straying from Afghanistan. I may not have the energy for any more globetrotting, and I may not have any more energy for you unless you come up with something really enticing.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
A)This is the internet. Simply saying you have a high GPA, naming battles or engagements that occurred during any war that you are allegedly an expert on, or any other attempt at propping one's self up does a couple of things. One, it makes you look as if you are compensating for something. A person that is confident in their abilities shouldn't feel the need to yell far and wide every little thing they allegedly know or think they know. Two, any decent points you do make are hidden by the fact that you feel the need to not only comment on the topic at hand, but also comment on things that no one really cares about and attempt to insult people who haven't insulted you. Comments such as "Or were you too busy keeping up with your homework to pay attention to the news back then? (Haha- homework? you?)" are unwarranted. Again, this references my belief that you were in fact a teenager or early 20's punk.
B) You can tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel better about your not serving in Vietnam. I agree that you don't need to have served to be able to have an opinion on wars that our country does or doesn't participate in. What I don't agree with is your willy nilly belief that we should just send troops where ever we want because, whatever, they are supposed to do that. This isn't Star Wars where the "troops" are heartless, emotionless bodies sent forth to fight and die at the will of whomever is in charge of them. Troops are actual people with families who shouldn't be sent forth to every friggin country in this world that thumbs their nose at us. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that as the numbers of House and Senate members that have served decreases, wars and "conflicts" seem to increase. People such as yourself, who haven't felt the loss of a comrade in combat nor had to notify their wife and kids of their death, shouldn't treat the lives of those people as if they were disposable capital. That's what you act like and you can keep whatever back pedaling comments you may post to yourself. Your previous posts reveal your true nature.
Now, on to Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.)
More Troops in 2001:
No, more doesn't always mean better. If that were the case, we would have gone in heavy at the beginning like we did in Iraq. As it is, we went in with small groups of elite troops such as ODA's, CIA paramilitary, etc. Their mission was to train the Northern Alliance and lead them in to combat against the Taliban. Note the NORTHERN Alliance ie the North was not a haven for the Taliban like the south was. I never said there wasn't a Taliban presence anywhere else in the country. I simply stated they were concentrated in the south. Again, you jump to a conclusion instead of taking a comment at face value. Small groups like ODA's, which I have worked with extensively in Iraq, do not need nor do they want the burden of conventional units attached to them during the type of mission they were conducting in 2001. Large, conventional units (especially US Army infantry) are typically slow to react, require a large amount of logistical support, and do not have the physical capability of scaling and climbing mountains like the ones seen in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) I will stop here to make a point.
***You MAY have a college degree. You MAY be a guy who studies history. I don't know if any of that is true or not. If it is, you MAY have more knowledge of history than I do. However, one thing I know to be true is that you have NO EXPERIENCE in the type of effort and energy that is required to operate in mountainous terrain such as the terrain that is present in Afghanistan. (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) Especially up north. Sure, you can come back and say something like "I used to hike the Rockies" or "I completed the Appalachian Trail". Those things are not even in the same ball park as conducting combat operations in a mountainous environment. Those things allow you to pick and chose where you walk. You can take a break when you want. You aren't wearing nearly the amount of gear a soldier/Marine is wearing. You don't have that whole threat of death thing going on either. So to attempt to make it sound like our troops are simply weak because they can't operate in mountainous terrain is, in my opinion, ignorant and disrespectful. Simply pointing to terrain on a map and saying "Go there and complete this mission" is the type of arm chair quarterback crap that gets people killed. I'm sure you, being the alleged history buff, can remember quite a few battles with incompetent leaders doing such things.***
Further, tactics do not win wars. Logistics do. As a "history buff" you should know this. Again, less is more when conducting operations in a country where you have no established way of supplying troops. In the beginnings of the Afghanistan (You know, the country that housed the perpetrators of 9/11.) invasion, the only resupply available to our guys were via air drop or what the SF teams could purchase locally with money they brought in with them. This is not an environment where you can air drop in troops from the 82nd or helo in a battalion of Marines and expect to sustain them. It takes 3 logistics personnel to support every infantry Marine (this includes mechanics to keep air up, landing support, etc, etc) and it takes 4 logistics personnel to support every Army infantryman. You also have to feed, house, etc those 3-4 logistics personnel that are there for every infantryman. SF, on the other hand, only require 2 logistics personnel per man. They also can procure enough supplies for themselves due to their small footprint. I say all that to demonstrate that, despite our not getting OBL in Tora Bora, the way the 2001 Afghanistan invasion was conducted was MASTERFUL compared to way we did it in Iraq. With barely 2% of the troops used in Iraq, we accomplished a full route of the enemy in difficult terrain with no established logistical support network. Remember, COIN wasn't something that any conventional troop even considered as a way of conducting war in 2001. The ONLY people trained in it's ways were SF. The reason Iraq turned out the way it did is because we sent in a blunt object to correct a problem that required a precision instrument. I was there for the invasion of Iraq and it was much bigger debacle that was portrayed on TV.
Finally, I won't argue the points with you about Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc. You are obviously convinced that sending troops to every country that doesn't agree with our point of view is the way to force them to freedom. I disagree wholeheartedly.
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
With that said, please make a point. I guess it is something against America being imperialists. We send weapons to Syria. We have troops in South Korea, Afghanistan, Germany, Italy and list of other countries. That is the military. Military force. Don't be so blind.
Look around the world. Realize we are the world police and we use our military to do it.
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the ******* irony in that." - Justin Halpern