That Old Time Religion ( ISLAM )

[DC Vol]

But you can kill your enemy.

Who is the enemy? Combatants? Non-combatants?


Yeah, we learned our lesson from Vietnam apparently.

 

[MontereyVol]

GWOT is a global military but primarily idealogical war on terrorism. Putting villages to the sword makes us no better than the militia groups that have oppressed them previously.

Doing what you suggest (forcing a conventional war against an unidentifiable enemy) would have landed us exactly where the Soviets ended up. You kill one fighter but due to your tactics you create 2. They didn't win... and we can't win that war either. I guess you know all this, though. The entire IC and the JCS current strategy are also completely wrong as well.

The soviets ran into an enemy more willing to defend themselves than they realized that was also backed by their own super power enemy that was draining their economy. If the US did not give aid and put stress on the Soviet economy they would own that country right now.

If you have issues with the strategy in place currently you should go complain to your rep. The military builds its plans on what they are told by their civilian leadership.

 

[MontereyVol]

Lets go with Mexico.


Their drug cartels are kidnapping Americans and their turf wars are spilling onto American streets. Why don't we go to war with the Mexican government/people then? They're all Mexicans, after all.

If the government decides to go to war with Mexico, then the military will build a strategy and move on it.

You aren't getting my point I want to know if you think a country that invades the US will target specific citizens while trying to keep the others happy.

 

[DC Vol]

The soviets ran into an enemy more willing to defend themselves than they realized that was also backed by their own super power enemy that was draining their economy. If the US did not give aid and put stress on the Soviet economy they would own that country right now.

If you have issues with the strategy in place currently you should go complain to your rep. The military builds its plans on what they are told by their civilian leadership.

Civilian leadership coined the terms:

War on Terror

-and-

Enduring Freedom


The current US strategy in Afghanistan is correct. I have no qualms. Finally a civilian group was in power that listened to the IC/HUMINT and JCS. Afghanistan didn't have a recognized government during 9/11. They were a nation ruled by the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't elected by the people and, thus, didn't represent the people of Afghanistan.

I also firmly believe that the US should never conduct war against a people of a nation. Only uniformed personnel or militia combatants. We're supposed to be better than that.

 

[DC Vol]

If the government decides to go to war with Mexico, then the military will build a strategy and move on it.

You aren't getting my point I want to know if you think a country that invades the US will target specific citizens while trying to keep the others happy.

The US shouldn't have it's ROE or it's overarching strategy built around how the people we're fighting conduct theirs.


Civilian casualties will occur, but they shouldn't be called for as a retaliation method.

 

[MontereyVol]

Civilian leadership coined the terms:

War on Terror

-and-

Enduring Freedom


The current US strategy in Afghanistan is correct. I have no qualms. Finally a civilian group was in power that listened to the IC/HUMINT and JCS. Afghanistan didn't have a recognized government during 9/11. They were a nation ruled by the Taliban. The Taliban wasn't elected by the people and, thus, didn't represent the people of Afghanistan.

I also firmly believe that the US should never conduct war against a people of a nation. Only uniformed personnel or militia combatants. We're supposed to be better than that.

I agree on the conduct of war, unfortunately we will never see that in our lifetime.

I don't agree that the civilian leadership has listened to its military anymore than they ever have. This doesn't include the ubiquitous backside kissing General that tells his leadership what they want to hear.

 

[MontereyVol]

The US shouldn't have it's ROE or it's overarching strategy built around how the people we're fighting conduct theirs.

So we still agree

Civilian casualties will occur, but they shouldn't be called for as a retaliation method.

Never said they should.

 

[DC Vol]

I agree on the conduct of war, unfortunately we will never see that in our lifetime.

I don't agree that the civilian leadership has listened to its military anymore than they ever have. This doesn't include the ubiquitous backside kissing General that tells his leadership what they want to hear.

Gates, from what I've heard, is far more open to lanes of communication with the JCS than Rumsfeld ever was.

The current Afghan strategy is something I know the IC has been pushing for for going on 8-9 years now. These were ignored under Rumsfeld and were put into effect under Gates. Probably helped that Gates came from the IC, but, regardless the strategies that were devised were not always implemented.

Boots on the ground, participation in tribal councils and mediating all result in higher quality HUMINT. HUMINT is the most important asset since Afghanistan is so decentralized and "off the grid". SIGINT and other forms of info/intel and military dominance were useful in Iraq... not so much in Afghanistan.

 

[gsvol]

Yeah, we learned our lesson from Vietnam apparently.

Or not.

As a Turkish general recently stated; "the trouble with America is that it never passes up an opportunity to stab itself in the back."

When Woodrow Wilson was president, Ho Chi Minh begged for support but was rebuffed.

Ho wanted desperately to be an American ally and was fond of quoting the US Constitution, he wanted to set up an independent government patterned after that of the USA.

Probably the greatest president of the twentieth century, Eisenhower, sent many of the arms we had gathered on Okinawah in preperation for the Japanese invasion to Ho in Vietnam after we nuked Japan.

In 1960 I read a book written by a US state foreign officer who had two admonitions, one of which was that we should never become involved in a confligration in southeast asia not on the side of Ho, because the people worshipped him like a god and would do anything for him.

Unfortunately we were sucked into the UN solution which was a rerun of the disastrous Korean policy.

The Vietnamese were the only people ever to repel the mongols.

The Vietnamese were the only people to defeat the Japanese. (other than America.)

No matter what we do in Afghanistan, it will end up to be a country dominated by islamic thought.

The current Afghan strategy is something I know the IC has been pushing for for going on 8-9 years now. These were ignored under Rumsfeld and were put into effect under Gates. Probably helped that Gates came from the IC, but, regardless the strategies that were devised were not always implemented.

It may be that we are unwilling to identify our real enemy.

As a Russian general remarked after the recent attack in Moscow, 'this may be a war that goes on for a hundred years.'

(actually it is a war that has been going on for fourteen centuries.)

He also stated that the perps were probably trained in Pakistan.

We originally fought ourselves in Afghanistan to overthrow a regime that harbored terroists and had terrorist training camps.

Pakistan now has bigger, more sophisticated terrorist training camps than Afghanistan ever had, they are also nuclear btw with at least 100 nuclear warheads.