• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Marine and Afghan forces lose many due to lack of support...

A military man's job and duty is to kill the enemy and survive to continue killing.

What? But I thought they were "innocent". :roll:
Get your story straight, y'all.
They're just guys doing a job. Their job involves killing some dangerous people.
They can minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible while doing that job, and that's what I and all other reasonable Americans expect them to do.
All the tough talk in the world doesn't change it.
 
They can minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible while doing that job, and that's what I and all other reasonable Americans expect them to do.


And this is exactly what they do. Our military does this better than any other military in history. Your complaining is based on theory and academics. Everytime a civilain dies you look to criticize as if the civilians were lined up and shot. As if precautions aren't in place.

If your son is ever in this position I hope he does his job and comes home to you. This means sacrificing the "innocent" civilian to get the enemy shooting at him before sacrificing himself.

The theories of the classroom quickly go away for the man actively tossed in the fire.
 
It has been suggested that our troops protect themselves by disregarding or otherwise being cavalier about the safety of Afghani civilians.

Untrue. We should always try to minimize civilian casualties, but we shouldn't be expected to minimize them at our own expense.
 
Untrue. We should always try to minimize civilian casualties, but we shouldn't be expected to minimize them at our own expense.

Well, maybe we should just leave.

I can't help turning it around and thinking, what if there were some American bad guys hiding here in America?
What if these bad guys had gone and committed some offense against Afghanistan: blown up a government building over there eight years ago, and now they're hiding out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains or something.

Would it really be okay with us if a huge army of Afghanis (for the sake of this analogy, just pretend they have a huge, powerful army) occupied our country for eight years in an attempt to root these bad Americans out and kill them?
And, assuming for the sake of argument that it was okay with us and that we in fact supported their efforts, would it be okay if they sometimes blew up bingo halls full of old ladies or mowed down groups of schoolchildren in school crosswalks, in their effort to get these bad guys?

They're people; we're people.
Our cultures are different, but I don't believe- at the bottom of it all- that anybody's that different from anybody else.
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe we should just leave.

I can't help turning it around and thinking, what if there were some American bad guys hiding here in America?
What if these bad guys had gone and committed some offense against Afghanistan: blown up a government building over there eight years ago, and now they're hiding out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains or something.

Would it really be okay with us if a huge army of Afghanis (for the sake of this analogy, just pretend they have a huge, powerful army) occupied our country for eight years in an attempt to root these bad Americans out and kill them?
And, assuming for the sake of argument that it was okay with us and that we in fact supported their efforts, would it be okay if they sometimes blew up bingo halls full of old ladies or mowed down groups of schoolchildren in school crosswalks, in their effort to get these bad guys?

They're people; we're people.
Our cultures are different, but I don't believe- at the bottom of it all- that anybody's that different from anybody else.
I wonder what the women of the USA would think if they were being treated like the Afgan women were treated by the Taliban. They might welcome some outside force. ;)

.
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe we should just leave.

Now you have a point. But you are expressing it over impractical reasons.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Iraq was always going to result in what we see today. If the Rumsfeld coven had listened to the military experience screaming in their ears, today's Iraq would have come in 2005 with far less internal slaughter. And despite the impratical conditions and demands for how "victory" was to be defined from the media and the stupid Democrats, Iraq was never going to be Vermont. But the relative success we see in Iraq, despite the medias cheer for ultimate failure, marks our efforts complete.

Afghanistan is not set up civlizationaly for anything remotely like what we see in Iraq. Instead of dealing with two distinct major tribes like we were in Iraq, we are dealing with literally hundreds of clans that are as corrupt towards each other as their government is to all of them. "Nation Building" is not practical. "Winning the hearts and minds" from people who were bred to hate you and hold everything you do in contempt is also impossible.

It's time to bring an old tool, which served great nations rather well in the past, forward. The "Punitive Strike" is perfectly suited for this region. If they cannot lift themselves out of their self designed opppresion and failure and they cannot allow outsiders to give them a leg up, then they are hopeless. Punishing our enemy in this region from afar is what they leave us with in terms of protecting ourselves from their human waste.

Would it really be okay with us if a huge army of Afghanis (for the sake of this analogy, just pretend they have a huge, powerful army) occupied our country for eight years in an attempt to root these bad Americans out and kill them?

Well, practicality & rationality trumps hypothetical scenarios.

An enemy in our midst would be hunted down and punished by our own people. Our civilization will not abide religious tyrants, serial killers, militant militias, and cults even as our media looks to brand our government and civil protectors as the enemy. This is not the case for others who allow their rabble to exist, organize, and exercise their terror locally and internationally. If the Middle Eastern Arab governments condemn Islamic terrorist attacks and we are to believe that their people do the same, then where are the great Arab armies fighting along side us to rid their civilizations of their own creations? Where is the Arab media really condemning the Arab orchestrated slaughter in Sudan? Or the condemnation of Arab instigated violence in Iraq instead of blaming their blood thirsty culture on the American powers that freed them from the dictator? Do even Muslims believe that they deserve nothing more than brutality and oppression to behave?

The lesson here that we should all learn is that at the heart of matters people are not the same all over as you suggest. For all our errors, we did give Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. But they preferred for years to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry, and a culture of corruption (Perhaps they are merely on break right now). According to the behaviors of Muslims themselves, they need a good old fashioned dictator to keep them in check. They need a foriegn devil to blame for everything in order to ignore the Bashirs, Husseins, Ahmenadejads. They need an American military to hate and criticize in order to ignore the Al-Quedas, Tali-Bans, Hezbollahs, etc. In the end, people get the governments they deserve.

Using hypothetics to rationalize a place where we can all hug each other and get along serves nobody any justice.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the women of the USA would think if they were being treated like the Afgan women were treated by the Taliban. They might have welcomed some outside force. ;)

.



I imagine most American women would probably accept such treatment, even defend it with their very lives against foreign invaders wishing to change it, if it were the status quo and if it were all anyone had ever known.
There might be a few who didn't like it; those few would either find a way to escape the culture in which it was the norm, or they'd be subjugated eventually.
Not until there is an overwhelming majority of them wanting it to change, will it change.
Outside "forces" will not be able to force lasting change on those who do not want it or are not ready for it.
Women are still oppressed even here in the US. But we love our daddies and husbands, brothers and sons.
Imagine how ferociously we'd fight for the status quo- even though it renders us inferior to men- if martians suddenly landed and began trying to force change upon us.

In Afghanistan, we are talking about a population which is largely very poor and uneducated; both the men and the women. Tradition is what they have.
 
Last edited:
Please read the article fully, this has been a pattern on the Afghan front.

Under command of the new administration, the US military's hands are tied. The new appointed Military leaders have protocol that, bluntly, chooses foreign civilians lives over those of our own troops.

If any of you don't think Obama's administration is to blame for the recent death toll in Afghanistan, think again.

Boo hoo!....We can't bomb civilians anymore to get at the "terrorists".

We actually have to send our troops in to fight! Oh my!

I'm sure this Muslim' kids Father will understand your argument that bombing civilians to get at "terrorists" is ethical and moral.

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images7/iraq/child_amputated_arms.jpe

Semper Fi!
 
Last edited:
Boo hoo!....We can't bomb civilians anymore to get at the "terrorists".

We actually have to send our troops in to fight! Oh my!

As tempting as it may be- especially when none of your loved ones are over there fighting or are likely to be, in the immediate future- I don't want to be cavalier about danger to our troops, either.

There can be no denying that the American casualty rate in Afghanistan has seen a steep increase lately, and may increase even more.
That's no laughing matter.

But the soldiers who do come home may come home without the blood of innocents on their hands, and that's nothing to take lightly. That's a gift, bought at the expense of their own safety.
And it's what I wish for all of them, including my son.
 
Before we jump to too many conclusions, there are some things to note.



This is the key section of the report. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, you are screwed.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the commanders chose civilian lives over the lives of troops. All we are told in the article is that helicopters and HE and smoke artillery where unavailable, but that WP was available, and used. We do not know why and there are a number of reasons possible, with logistic troubles probably topping the list.

This is a tragic story, and to twist it to serve a political purpose is vile.

Also, please read the BN news rules, your thread title is supposed to match the article headline.

Boy you sure know how to rain on a right winger's parade, injecting reason into his "blame Obama" storyline.
 
I imagine most American women would probably accept such treatment, even defend it with their very lives against foreign invaders wishing to change it, if it were the status quo and if it were all anyone had ever known.

There might be a few who didn't like it; those few would either find a way to escape the culture in which it was the norm, or they'd be subjugated eventually.
Not until there is an overwhelming majority of them wanting it to change, will it change.
Outside "forces" will not be able to force lasting change on those who do not want it or are not ready for it.
Women are still oppressed even here in the US. But we love our daddies and husbands, brothers and sons.
Imagine how ferociously we'd fight for the status quo- even though it renders us inferior to men- if martians suddenly landed and began trying to force change upon us.
I find it hard to believe USA woman would accept most of the following (list from Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan ):

******************************************************
1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.
********************************************************



I guess you would know more about this than I as you (at least I think) are a USA woman, although it cerainly is sad.

.
 
I find it hard to believe USA woman would accept most of the following...

Why? What do you think we'd do about it?
Women here are born the same as women there.
People will accept what they're raised with, especially when they aren't educated and know nothing else, and are largely taken up with such daily concerns as survival and keeping their children alive.

Women who have no control over whether or when to have children or how many to have care little about other personal freedoms.
This is seen in developing nations all over the planet.
"Equality" would be a farce under such circumstances; they are not equal.
They will always be the slaves of men, and their shackles will be their children.
 
Last edited:
There can be no denying that the American casualty rate in Afghanistan has seen a steep increase lately, and may increase even more.
That's no laughing matter.

This is because the Marine Corps is shifting from Iraq deployments to Afghanistan. In prior years, our numbers were just over 11,000 and even a great number of this was from routine sea bases to offer temporary relief towards U.S Army and NATO units. This number has been increasing by the thousands all year. The rise in American deaths is due to finally taking the fight to our enemies rather than hanging out and hitting them when they appear. It's not because Obama. It's not because the Tali-Ban found some second wind. It is because this war is coming to a head and it is time to saturate the desert with blood.

This means civilians will be caught in the fray.
 
Last edited:
This is because the Marine Corps is shifting from Iraq deployments to Afghanistan. In prior years, our numbers were just over 11,000. This number has been increasing by the thousands all year. The rise in American deaths is due to finally taking the fight to our enemies rather than hanging out and hitting them when they appear. It's not because Obama. It's not because the Tali-Ban found some second wind. It is because this war is coming to a head and it is time to saturate the desert with blood.

This means civilians will be caught in the fray.

I hope that isn't the case, but I trust your experience.
 
In Right Wing Bizzarro World the more patriotic you are the more you are willing to excuse civilian casualties.

One poster said he was fine with a 10:1 ratio civilian deaths to save one US soldier!

That's pretty damn patriotic if you ask me!...............Shows how brave they are too!

Over in Israel they killed 500 Palestinian kids alone in a 1 Month time span in response to rocket attacks that killed 8 Israelies over a two year period.

Damn, the Israelies must really love their country to do that!
 
Last edited:
Why? What do you think we'd do about it?
Women here are born the same as women there.
People will accept what they're raised with, especially when they aren't educated and know nothing else, and are largely taken up with such daily concerns as survival and keeping their children alive.
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that USA women had some moxie. It is sad that they have such a low opinion of their own worth.

.
 
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that USA women had some moxie. It is sad that they have such a low opinion of their own worth.

.

Nothing really matters to women but that their children survive.
Only in societies where there is no credible threat to their children for an extended period of time do women concern themselves with anything else.
 
What? But I thought they were "innocent". :roll:
Get your story straight, y'all.

They are innocent. The average American soldier hasn't committed any crimes.

They're just guys doing a job. Their job involves killing some dangerous people.
They can minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible while doing that job, and that's what I and all other reasonable Americans expect them to do.
All the tough talk in the world doesn't change it.

Dieing, because they could get a fire mission, because of a fear of collateral damage, isn't a part of their job description.
 
Nothing really matters to women but that their children survive.
Only in societies where there is no credible threat to their children for an extended period of time do women concern themselves with anything else.
Maybe women that do not stand up for themselves and their daughters do not deserve to have children that survive. ;)

.
 
In Right Wing Bizzarro World the more patriotic you are the more you are willing to excuse civilian casualties.

One poster said he was fine with a 10:1 ratio civilian deaths to save one US soldier!

That's pretty damn patriotic if you ask me!...............Shows how brave they are too!

Over in Israel they killed 500 Palestinian kids alone in a 1 Month time span in response to rocket attacks that killed 8 Israelies over a two year period.

Damn, the Israelies must really love their country to do that!

Maybe the Pals should stop shooting off rockets into Israel? I got an even better idea, the Pals should stop positioning those rockets in civilian neighborhoods and creating all those civilian casualties. I'm sure that logic is above the heads of most Libbos.
 
Maybe women that do not stand up for themselves and their daughters do not deserve to have children that survive. ;)

.

Whether they deserve children or even want them, they do not have a choice in a developing nation.
And biology doesn't permit them any choice but to love them more than life, once they're here.

It's the human condition.
Because industrialized civilizations have risen above it doesn't mean it's not still there, or that it wouldn't reassert itself immediately in the absence of the technology with which we hold it at bay and deny its existence.
 
I hope that isn't the case, but I trust your experience.

I keep offering you this because I know you have concern for your son.

It is very much the case. When our KIA and WIA numbers raise in any war it is usually due to an increase of operations. And in today's wars, this is the case because the military is routinely hand cuffed by politicians until the situation demands more blood than it should have. I can offer you example after example on how the proper conduct of war is far safer upon the military man and the local civilain than the politicians improper handling of our militay affairs.

Our military can defeat virtually anything in its path while maintaining a measure of respect toward civilian life and structure. Even our diplomats would have trouble preventing an American victory. It is always the politicians (as far from the fight as possible) that cause more blood than needed and places civilians in longer lasting dangers.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into the our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness. In Iraq, the rediculous notion of being humane spared Al-Sadr and some Mosques. The result was the strengthening of Sadr's militias and use of Mosques as HQs and cache storage, which further endangerd civilians and the lives of our troops for years. Our allegiance to exaggerated media clips over Fallujah merely paved the way for Fallujah II (the terroriost capital of the world by that time) where this time our enemy dug in and used hospitals (of which we had to ram through) further wrecking structure and lives.

Now we are starting to see our politicians do it in Afghanistan. With this as an exmaple on how to survive the American military, how many more local civilians and American troops are going to be placed in harms way? How many more stories will read now about American Marines dying because the Tali-Ban positioned themselves behind civilians? They may as well strap civilians to the front of airplanes for their next strike on our soil. Our enemies have consistently learned to play our "morality" against us and we continue to play into their hands all for the temporary and senseless idea that "we" kill with greater morality.

We must learn to live with higher levels of foriegn instability and not seek the false peace of the secret policeman or dictator if we are ever to see an end to the tumult by which we find ourselves troubled today. We also need to grasp the basic truth that the path to winning the hearts and minds of the masses leads over the corpses of the violent minority.

As long as our ROEs are tailored to suit the media and not military necessity, we will continue to place civilains lives in danger and the lives of our troops. Ultimately we only protect our enemies lives.
 
Last edited:
You're reading comments that haven't been made. No one has said anything about ignoring the needs of the indigenous personel of Afghanistan. This whole thread has nothing to do with targetting, or otherwise intentionall endangering civilians. The only point that anyone on my side of the debate has suggested, is that we can't place civilians lives ahead of American soldiers's lives. If an American unit is taking fire from a village, then we need to return fire, period. If a few civilians get wasted in the process, well then that's just the nature of war. If the civilians aren't smart enough to see that they wouldn't dieing if the enemy wasn't using them for cover, then there's not much we're going to do to help them.
Lt. colonel David Galula was born in Tunisia, raised in Morocco, and entered the French Army in 1938. He wrote Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, one of the most influential and essential books on Counterinsurgency. His ideas about Counterinsurgency were learned in Algeria, where the French fought a war against an nationalist Algerian uprising. In his book, he explains the difference between firepower in conventional warfare and in Counterinsurgency:

David Galula said:
A soldier fired upon in conventional war who does not fire back with every available weapon would be guilty of a dereliction of his duty; the reverse would be the case in counterinsurgency warfare, where the rule is to apply the minimum amount of firepower.

The Army has failed to follow this before; most notably when the 82nd Airborne followed a system of tracking wherever an incoming mortar round had come from and responding to it with a volley of artillery fire. The response to this system from the insurgents was to setup in a random persons' home and then leave after firing a few shots, causing the 82nd to decimate that innocent persons' home and achieving nothing but an angry Iraqi family.

Lt. Colonel John Nagl's account of how the Army approached Vietnam which later was echoed in Iraq:
The American Army's involvement in the Second Indochina War from 1950 to 1972 demonstrates the triumph of the institutional culture of an organization over attempts at doctrinal innovation and the diminution of the effectiveness of the organization at accomplishing national objectives. The United States Army had become reliant on firepower and technological superiority in its history of annilihating enemy forces... The concept that success in counterinsurgency consisted of seperating the insurgents from popular support never took hold. The U.S. Army proceeded with its historical role of destroying the enemy army--even if it had a hard time finding it. The United States Army entered the Vietnam War with a doctrine well suited to fighting conventional war in Europe, but worse than useless for the counterinsurgency it was about to combat

You are falling back to old and failed ideas on how to combat an insurgency. The Army Manual on Counterinsurgency was written by General Petraus, who changed the direction in Iraq by following these fundamental principles.

T.E. Lawrence, the British adviser to Arab guerillas during World War 1, defined tactics as:
the means toward the strategic goal, the steps of its staircase
Utilizing tactics that go against the strategic goal harm the mission... By using firepower on civilians you will prolong the war, ensuring more men will die, or even worse, you may create the conditions for failure.

I know exactly what you are saying. The question is whether you know what I am saying, or, more pressing, whether you are willing to listen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom