• 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!

America’s Dumbest War, Ever

Crossroads said:
Rules of engagement started under Bush, and General Petraeus revised the rules under Obama, not much, but he certainly loosened them from what they were before. Petraeus revises rules | POLITICO 44
Click to expand...
We have had rules of engagement for a very long time. I remember reading about engagement rules during the Italy campaign in WWII.

Politico did not make the case. I read what you referenced. We won't use air strikes against abandoned buildings. Okay. How does that enable infantry troops on a patrol to effectively fire upon insurgents?
 
obvious Child said:
That isn't a proposal, that is just a talking point. What can Afghanistan export to generate income for its people other than opium? Free Market capitalism doesn't mean **** when their is nothing for the economy to base itself on.
Click to expand...
Minerals. Afghanistan has at least a trillion dollars worth of minerals. Or maybe more...
Afghanistan has huge untapped mineral reserves including gems, copper, iron, ore, gold, lithium and other rare elements. The untapped minerals of Afghanistan worth at least 3 trillion dollars, three times more than what the US estimated in recent months, the Ministry of Mines announced on Thursday June 17, 2010.​
3 Trillion Dollars Worth Of Rare Earth Minerals What Country Am I Talking About ? - Find Answers to this Question
 
Misterveritis said:
Minerals. Afghanistan has at least a trillion dollars worth of minerals. Or maybe more...
Afghanistan has huge untapped mineral reserves including gems, copper, iron, ore, gold, lithium and other rare elements. The untapped minerals of Afghanistan worth at least 3 trillion dollars, three times more than what the US estimated in recent months, the Ministry of Mines announced on Thursday June 17, 2010.​
3 Trillion Dollars Worth Of Rare Earth Minerals What Country Am I Talking About ? - Find Answers to this Question
Click to expand...

That will take at least another decade to get going. The deposits the Soviets found decades ago is a pipe dream for short to medium term economic independence. And the American public does not have the stomach for another decade of occupation.
 
Misterveritis said:
So you are not the one who claimed near perfect knowledge of our rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan? LOL. Uh-huh.

There you go again.
Click to expand...

Your posts are very bad. Remember how this debate started? You claimed to know something had changed when Obama took office. Later, you admitted you don't really know. Just...sad.
 
Misterveritis said:
Minerals. Afghanistan has at least a trillion dollars worth of minerals. Or maybe more...
Afghanistan has huge untapped mineral reserves including gems, copper, iron, ore, gold, lithium and other rare elements. The untapped minerals of Afghanistan worth at least 3 trillion dollars, three times more than what the US estimated in recent months, the Ministry of Mines announced on Thursday June 17, 2010.​
3 Trillion Dollars Worth Of Rare Earth Minerals What Country Am I Talking About ? - Find Answers to this Question
Click to expand...


So minerals are the new reason to be there?

*It is no longer a war of retribution for 9/11, no longer a war of democratic nation building, no longer a message to militant Islam?

Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.*

We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what?

"Rationales for maintaining the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan are varied and complex, but they all center on one key tenet: that Afghanistan must not be allowed to again become a haven for terrorist groups, especially al-Qaeda. Debate about Afghanistan has raised reasons to question that tenet, one of which is that the top al-Qaeda leadership is not even in Afghanistan, having decamped to Pakistan years ago. Another is that terrorists intent on establishing a haven can choose among several unstable countries besides Afghanistan, and U.S. forces cannot secure them all."

Paul R Pillar*
 
Joechilli said:
Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.*
Click to expand...

Seems Bin Laden may be winning, even if posthumously:

The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.

Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that we're letting Allah win.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Seems Bin Laden may be winning, even if posthumously:



Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that we're letting Allah win.
Click to expand...

Brilliant article,

Maybe we better parachute in some West Virgina miners ;)

Although 'Kick his ass get the gas' has a better ring to it than 'kick his ass get the minerals'
I hope the staying isn't based on the arrogance of politicians. If safe havens were such a big deal why isn't there a Bagram base in Pakistan?

"Targeted killings of government officials and politicians have tripled. Three elections are to come as the Taliban press home their advantage – provincial councils in 2013, the presidency in 2014 and parliament in 2015, so the opportunity for mayhem is unbounded.
With the proposed rate of 20 base closures a month, the job of holding the country together will come down to an Afghan national army, only 7% of which is currently considered capable of independent action, even with foreign advisers. The International Crisis Group in a report on Monday paints a bleak picture of Afghanistan's readiness to prepare for elections and a transfer of power after Hamid Karzai's mandate ends. It quotes one veteran Afghan security official as saying there is no national army or police force, only a factionalised one which could instantly fissure. The international community, it warns, has one last chance to leave a viable state in Afghanistan, by helping Afghans prepare for an election and a smooth transfer of presidential power. About 18 months remain to prevent a repeat of the chaos and fraud of previous elections. Failure to do so in a corrupt and factionalised state would lead to civil war on the heels of Nato's withdrawal, especially if President Karzai tries to stay in power by declaring a state of emergency. Under these conditions the army would not maintain its nominal unity.
An exit like this would leave the US with just two points of historical comparison: the fall of Saigon in 1975, and Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. Of the two, the Soviet parallel is looking closer each day."

m.guardian.co.uk

Can anyone even put over a military strategy for winning?
I'd like to hear one?
 
Joechilli said:
Brilliant article,

Maybe we better parachute in some West Virgina miners ;)

Although 'Kick his ass get the gas' has a better ring to it than 'kick his ass get the minerals'
I hope the staying isn't based on the arrogance of politicians. If safe havens were such a big deal why isn't there a Bagram base in Pakistan?

"Targeted killings of government officials and politicians have tripled. Three elections are to come as the Taliban press home their advantage – provincial councils in 2013, the presidency in 2014 and parliament in 2015, so the opportunity for mayhem is unbounded.
With the proposed rate of 20 base closures a month, the job of holding the country together will come down to an Afghan national army, only 7% of which is currently considered capable of independent action, even with foreign advisers. The International Crisis Group in a report on Monday paints a bleak picture of Afghanistan's readiness to prepare for elections and a transfer of power after Hamid Karzai's mandate ends. It quotes one veteran Afghan security official as saying there is no national army or police force, only a factionalised one which could instantly fissure. The international community, it warns, has one last chance to leave a viable state in Afghanistan, by helping Afghans prepare for an election and a smooth transfer of presidential power. About 18 months remain to prevent a repeat of the chaos and fraud of previous elections. Failure to do so in a corrupt and factionalised state would lead to civil war on the heels of Nato's withdrawal, especially if President Karzai tries to stay in power by declaring a state of emergency. Under these conditions the army would not maintain its nominal unity.
An exit like this would leave the US with just two points of historical comparison: the fall of Saigon in 1975, and Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. Of the two, the Soviet parallel is looking closer each day."

m.guardian.co.uk

Can anyone even put over a military strategy for winning?
I'd like to hear one?
Click to expand...

So, we'll probably leave eventually, and the country will regress to chaos and be taken over by the Taliban or some similar group. Afterwards, self described "conservatives" will rant about how the "liberals" snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, how we would have won had we just "stayed the course", and how we really won the war, just like they like to rant about the fall of Saigon.

And, down the road, we'll invade yet another country to fight terrorism, or perhaps Communism, or some other ism and make the world safe for democracy.
 
Yes, I'm sure that was his goal.
 
Rules of Engagement?

It's pretty apparent that the rules of Engagement since Clinton started going to places like Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti are that only American soldiers must die. The enemy must survive in far greater numbers.

Maybe someone can state what the Muslim Rules of Engagement are?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, we'll probably leave eventually, and the country will regress to chaos and be taken over by the Taliban or some similar group. Afterwards, self described "conservatives" will rant about how the "liberals" snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, how we would have won had we just "stayed the course", and how we really won the war, just like they like to rant about the fall of Saigon.

And, down the road, we'll invade yet another country to fight terrorism, or perhaps Communism, or some other ism and make the world safe for democracy.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say but the comparison is not really the same. The USSR was bent on taking over the country and we are intent on breaking apart terrorist networks and installing a stable government. Well, the government aspect may or may not work but we certainly acheived the goal or disrupting terrorist networks. At what cost and for how long though...
 
Ray410 said:
Rules of Engagement?

It's pretty apparent that the rules of Engagement since Clinton started going to places like Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti are that only American soldiers must die. The enemy must survive in far greater numbers.

Maybe someone can state what the Muslim Rules of Engagement are?
Click to expand...

In Somalia our Rangers and Delta kicked the **** out of thousands and thousands of the enemy... killing thousands while only losing 18 if I remember correctly. Rules of engagement worked in our favor there.

It was Clinton running our troops home that motivated Bin Laden by his own account. He saw how we fled after losing some troops and he knew we didn't have the back bone that he did. This is there lives... war. We want peace. They want to fight. Not a good start for us.
 
Bodhisattva said:
In Somalia our Rangers and Delta kicked the **** out of thousands and thousands of the enemy... killing thousands while only losing 18 if I remember correctly. Rules of engagement worked in our favor there..
Click to expand...

I would like very much for you to be correct, however I only recall reading the events that resulted in the Movie "Blackhawk Down."

Can you provide a cite with regards to America killing "thousands and thousands of the enemy?"
 
Bodhisattva; said:
I can do a further look but I found this:
US sources estimate between 1,500 and 3,000 Somali casualties Battle of Mogadishu (1993) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Good news for a change! Thank you.

Here's what has always bothered me: "On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for his decision to refuse requests for tanks and armored vehicles in support of the mission."

How could any American leader refuse to support our ground troops, choosing instead to let Americans die.
 
Ray410 said:
Good news for a change! Thank you.

Here's what has always bothered me: "On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for his decision to refuse requests for tanks and armored vehicles in support of the mission."

How could any American leader refuse to support our ground troops, choosing instead to let Americans die.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even then the soldiers were asking for more body armor and were getting denied. There is a lot of lip service given to the military but I honestly don't believe most of our career politicans care one bit about the hard working men and women of the armed forces.
 
obvious Child said:
That will take at least another decade to get going. The deposits the Soviets found decades ago is a pipe dream for short to medium term economic independence. And the American public does not have the stomach for another decade of occupation.
Click to expand...
Squirm. Wriggle. Obfuscate. Repeat.

Got it.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Your posts are very bad. Remember how this debate started? You claimed to know something had changed when Obama took office. Later, you admitted you don't really know. Just...sad.
Click to expand...
Actually, you claimed, from your starting point of near perfect knowledge that I didn't know. It is possible you don't recognize the difference.

I claimed that the rules of engagement have become so restrictive under Obama that the troops cannot win. They cannot fight effectively. I use the tools I have, my interaction with our customer, to draw my conclusions.

But you claim near perfect knowledge. Of course I had to laugh.
 
Joechilli said:
Can anyone even put over a military strategy for winning?
I'd like to hear one?
Click to expand...
Limited wars are fought with limited resources for limited goals. We need only deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This is achievable.
 
Ray410 said:
Good news for a change! Thank you.

Here's what has always bothered me: "On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for his decision to refuse requests for tanks and armored vehicles in support of the mission."

How could any American leader refuse to support our ground troops, choosing instead to let Americans die.
Click to expand...
I liked Les Aspin. Some believe his role in refusing to send in armored vehicles, including tanks, broke his heart and led to his death. The military requested the vehicles well before this battle. Aspin said no.
 
The US Civil War was certainly one of the most stupid wars of all time.

If the north compensated the southern slave owners for the financial loss of slaves I believe the other issues could have been certainly resolved through mediation diplomacy or a democratic process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom