Support NeoGAF

[SmokyDave]

I don't get it. This thread is full of people in the past 100 posts going "fuck them, who cares about terrorists, let's get uglier, etc."

Can you explain why you posted a dictionary definition that doesn't describe me at all, because I'm not trying to feign righteousness? I've pretty clearly described my feelings on why we should act the way the UK did.

It's not what you said so much as how you said it. You just sashay in, sweep your arm across the great unwashed and condemn them. That dictionary definition is duff, "Making a show of being morally superior to other people" would have been a far more accurate definition.

Either way, this 'battle for hearts and minds', what if it can't be won? What if we just have to accept that we're at war and we may be required to act in a manner that we wouldn't normally?

Just so you know, I personally am against the war (on the grounds that it cannot be won). Now we're there, however, I see no merit in pussyfooting about.

Edit: I suppose the best way I can put it is that reading your post gave the illusion of a man curling his top lip into a sneer having just stumbled across a bad smell.

 

[RiskyChris]

It's not what you said so much as how you said it. You just sashay in, sweep your arm across the great unwashed and condemn them. That dictionary definition is duff, "Making a show of being morally superior to other people" would have been a far more accurate definition.

Either way, this 'battle for hearts and minds', what if it can't be won? What if we just have to accept that we're at war and we may be required to act in a manner that we wouldn't normally?

Just so you know, I personally am against the war (on the grounds that it cannot be won). Now we're there, however, I see no merit in pussyfooting about.

We don't accept that we're at war and may be required to act in a manner we wouldn't normally because lowering our standards of conduct to those of terrorists is stupid, disgusting, and ultimately hurts our cause.

I don't need to come in and make a big show about people because those warmongers and disgusting people have done it themselves countless times in this thread.

That you don't see merit in "pussyfooting about" shows your lack of understanding in how our actions can bolster the enemy's power and influence in the region.

 

[Kinitari]

It's not what you said so much as how you said it. You just sashay in, sweep your arm across the great unwashed and condemn them. That dictionary definition is duff, "Making a show of being morally superior to other people" would have been a far more accurate definition.

Either way, this 'battle for hearts and minds', what if it can't be won? What if we just have to accept that we're at war and we may be required to act in a manner that we wouldn't normally?

Just so you know, I personally am against the war (on the grounds that it cannot be won). Now we're there, however, I see no merit in pussyfooting about.

Edit: I suppose the best way I can put it is that reading your post gave the illusion of a man curling his top lip into a sneer having just stumbled across a bad smell.

I understand your sentiment, but I don't think you are thinking this through, and are using emotions to come to this conclusion. Can you give me one scenario where using brutality should be encouraged? Where it should not be condemned or corrected? Just because we can't see any clear or obvious gains from using discretion, doesn't mean we should abandon it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I understand your sentiment, but I don't think you are thinking this through, and are using emotions to come to this conclusion. Can you give me one scenario where using brutality should be encouraged? Where it should not be condemned or corrected? Just because we can't see any clear or obvious gains from using discretion, doesn't mean we should abandon it.

While not saying we should engage in it, the Taliban themselves seem effective in scaring the crap out of people with brutality. Afghans won't support reconstruction attempts (using a market) or be seen near gov't officials because they're terrified the Taliban are going to butcher them or be blown up in the market. I don't say we do what the Taliban does, but they do seem to use brutality effectively.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

We don't accept that we're at war and may be required to act in a manner we wouldn't normally because lowering our standards of conduct to those of terrorists is stupid, disgusting, and ultimately hurts our cause.

I don't need to come in and make a big show about people because those warmongers and disgusting people have done it themselves countless times in this thread.

That you don't see merit in "pussyfooting about" shows your lack of understanding in how our actions can bolster the enemy's power and influence in the region.

The point is you want us to lose. If the US somehow produces a stable Afghan gov't that can defend itself and its people, it will invalidate your opposition. It is not in your interest for the US to succeed.

 

[SmokyDave]

We don't accept that we're at war and may be required to act in a manner we wouldn't normally because lowering our standards of conduct to those of terrorists is stupid, disgusting, and ultimately hurts our cause.

I don't need to come in and make a big show about people because those warmongers and disgusting people have done it themselves countless times in this thread.

That you don't see merit in "pussyfooting about" shows your lack of understanding in how our actions can bolster the enemy's power and influence in the region.

But ultimately, none of that is really relevant to this case. This man didn't cut the head off for shits & giggles, it was to fulfil his mission in the quickest, safest way possible. The idea that a beheading should shock these people into new levels of outrage is just laughable. They're seemingly already as outraged as they're going to get. I'd say the risk of 'not getting into heaven' was about all we have to use against some of them. That's not to mention the fact we're assuming that we haven't offended the Gurkha by punishing him for doing his job. No idea how that goes down in Gurkha culture, would you happen to know?

You're right about something though, I don't understand that region. Neither do you. Neither do either of our leaders. Oops. Time for a new plan methinks.

I understand your sentiment, but I don't think you are thinking this through, and are using emotions to come to this conclusion. Can you give me one scenario where using brutality should be encouraged? Where it should not be condemned or corrected? Just because we can't see any clear or obvious gains from using discretion, doesn't mean we should abandon it.

I don't think it will work. I don't think anything will work. I think this is a war that cannot and will not be won. My hope in brutality is that it shocks the populations of the US & UK into demanding a withdrawal from the area sooner rather than later (if we follow the appeasement / compromise route).

 

[Jex]

When you invade someone's country they do tend to get pissed off.

Committing acts of brutality surely won't help the situation. Whether or not they had a purpose, it just looks awful, frankly.

The war itself is pretty damn hard to "win" anyway, which is why I wouldn't recommend staying around to try and fight it.

 

[Empty]

While not saying we should engage in it, the Taliban themselves seem effective in scaring the crap out of people with brutality. Afghans won't support reconstruction attempts (using a market) or be seen near gov't officials because they're terrified the Taliban are going to butcher them or be blown up in the market. I don't say we do what the Taliban does, but they do seem to use brutality effectively.

quite outside of the debate over whether instilling fear is that effective in achieving our aims regarding the establishment of a secure democratic state, the idea is that we are meant to be better than that. that we don't use immoral tactics to coerce the population of the countries we occupy like the horrible regimes that we are fighting do.

 

[methos75]

We don't accept that we're at war and may be required to act in a manner we wouldn't normally because lowering our standards of conduct to those of terrorists is stupid, disgusting, and ultimately hurts our cause.

I don't need to come in and make a big show about people because those warmongers and disgusting people have done it themselves countless times in this thread.

That you don't see merit in "pussyfooting about" shows your lack of understanding in how our actions can bolster the enemy's power and influence in the region.

The problem lies in what extactly is our cause? Is it to wipe out as many as the terrorist as possible and to scare the ones left into inaction, or is it too win hearts and minds? If the latter then you do what needs to be done no matter how immoral and disgusting it may seem because in the end War is ugly and it takes ugliness to win one, that is fact. Ever since we have went on this PC war front where we try to win love while trying to win a war we have lost, I wonder why? Its because you cannot logically do both at one time. You go in and you wipe out the enemy and you win, after that is done and only after that is done can you go about and try to win hearts and minds. If we fought WWII like we are trying to fight now, we all be German speaking right now. As WW2 showed us, you pull no punches at all.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

quite outside of the debate over whether instilling fear is that effective in achieving our aims regarding the establishment of a secure democratic state, the idea is that we are meant to be better than that. that we don't use immoral tactics to coerce the population.

I agree, I was merely speaking to the question of whether brutality can ever be effective.

 

[Kinitari]

While not saying we should engage in it, the Taliban themselves seem effective in scaring the crap out of people with brutality. Afghans won't support reconstruction attempts (using a market) or be seen near gov't officials because they're terrified the Taliban are going to butcher them or be blown up in the market. I don't say we do what the Taliban does, but they do seem to use brutality effectively.

I am not saying the tactic is ineffective, I am saying it is ineffective for our cause.

 

[Jex]

The problem lies in what extactly is our cause? Is it to wipe out as many as the terrorist as possible and to scare the ones left into inaction, or is it too win hearts and minds? If the latter then you do what needs to be done no matter how immoral and disgusting it may seem because in the end War is ugly and it takes ugliness to win one, that is fact. Ever since we have went on this PC war front where we try to win love while trying to win a war we have lost, I wonder why? Its because you cannot logically do both at one time. You go in and you wipe out the enemy and you win, after that is done and only after that is done can you go about and try to win hearts and minds. If we fought WWII like we are trying to fight now, we all be German speaking right now. As WW2 showed us, you pull no punches at all.

I do so enjoy it when arguments run themselves off a cliff.

 

[methos75]

I am not saying the tactic is ineffective, I am saying it is ineffective for our cause.

Us trying to be PC and winning the minds and hearts is working either, in fact our pussy footing around the locals is why we are not winning and why so many of us are dying. Our needless drive to try to be both friend and aggessor in the AOR has lead to SOPs and security procedures that make no logical sense and place us in danger. Something needs to be done and quickly, us trying to be soft over there is helping so we need to step up how aggressive we are rather those who have never fought in combat agree or not.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I am not saying the tactic is ineffective, I am saying it is ineffective for our cause.

Against civilian populations I absolutely agree, but I would have to wonder if against some specific and limited targets, it might have use (Commanders, Taliban Shadow Governors, etc), and by that I mean using WP, Explosive tipped rounds, etc, think that will leave the target either burnt, sticky, or being a lot less top heavy. It sends a message that there is retribution and that these leaders can't protect themselves. The drones do that now to an extent.

 

[methos75]

I do so enjoy it when arguments run themselves off a cliff.

Because you do not agree with my views means little and doesn't mean they hold no merit. Unlike you I have lived and fought in that region and I have seen the issues first hand, I have an expertise on the situation that you can never have nor pretend to have unless you enlist and go over there and see how messed up the issues are there.

 

[Jex]

Because you do not agree with my views means little and doesn't mean they hold no merit. Unlike you I have lived and fought in that region and I have seen the issues first hand, I have an expertise on the situation that you can never have nor pretend to have unless you enlist and go over there and see how messed up the issues are there.

Regardless of your (relevant) experience any argument that ends with we'd all be "speaking German" is awful.

But carry on comparing very different things.

 

[SmokyDave]

Regardless of your (relevant) experience any argument that ends with we'd all be "speaking German" is awful.

But carry on comparing very different things.

However, probably correct in this context. More Churchill, less Chamberlain.

Spoiler

Even I don't know if I'm being serious.

 

[Empty]

I do so enjoy it when arguments run themselves off a cliff.

he ran himself off a cliff earlier when he tried to justify torture. now he's moving his arms and feet in the air desperately as he plummets.

 

[methos75]

Regardless of your (relevant) experience any argument that ends with we'd all be "speaking German" is awful.

But carry on comparing very different things.

Yeah but its true, we fought in a way then that was brutal and effective, after WW2 we were sorta of shell shocked by the carnage we had observed and started changing our war plans to be more concious of the populace, less over all damaging to them, and less brutal and that hasn;'t worked and we have lost most wars we have been in since because of this. There is historical revalance here that needs to be looked at, but our leadership was brought up in a feel good culture and they refuse to see the answers as they should, because they do not want to darken their own selves though in order to win they may have to.

 

[Kinitari]

The problem lies in what extactly is our cause? Is it to wipe out as many as the terrorist as possible and to scare the ones left into inaction, or is it too win hearts and minds? If the latter then you do what needs to be done no matter how immoral and disgusting it may seem because in the end War is ugly and it takes ugliness to win one, that is fact. Ever since we have went on this PC war front where we try to win love while trying to win a war we have lost, I wonder why? Its because you cannot logically do both at one time. You go in and you wipe out the enemy and you win, after that is done and only after that is done can you go about and try to win hearts and minds. If we fought WWII like we are trying to fight now, we all be German speaking right now. As WW2 showed us, you pull no punches at all.

You're going through a lot of trouble to fool yourself, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Brutality isn't going to reduce the number of terrorists.

 

[RiskyChris]

The point is you want us to lose. If the US somehow produces a stable Afghan gov't that can defend itself and its people, it will invalidate your opposition. It is not in your interest for the US to succeed.

Why do you think I want the US to fail? That's a fucking dumb thing to attribute to me without any basis at all.

You're right about something though, I don't understand that region. Neither do you. Neither do either of our leaders. Oops. Time for a new plan methinks

This is a shit argument. I know for a fact that our mere presence bolsters their cause. Our killing civilians bolsters their cause. Our being brutal and morally senseless bolsters their cause.

This is common knowledge, not speculation. I'm not claiming to fully understand the region, but if you disagree with the above tenets you are insane.

 

[methos75]

he ran himself off a cliff earlier when he tried to justify torture. now he's moving his arms and feet in the air desperately as he plummets.

Once again because you disagree with my opinions doeasn't been I have ran off a Cliff nor that your right, I think it so funny that some are too immature to accept others opinions and only believe theirs is right. As I stated, I saw first hand how useful Interrogating EPWs was in Iraq where most of our intel in detecting and stopping attacks and locating leaders was gathered through those means. Maybe when it comes to large scale attacks such as those like 911 its useless, but that doesn't mean it is in all situations as my experiance has shown.

 

[RiskyChris]

Once again because you disagree with my opinions doeasn't been I have ran off a Cliff nor that your right, I think it so funny that some are too immature to accept others opinions and only believe theirs is right. As I stated, I saw first hand how useful Interrogating EPWs was in Iraq where most of our intel in detecting and stopping attacks and locating leaders was gathered through those means. Maybe when it comes to large scale attacks such as those like 911 its useless, but that doesn't mean it is in all situations as my experiance has shown.

Why would someone accept a dumb, inconsistent, and realistically infeasible opinion?

 

[Jex]

Yeah but its true, we fought in a way then that was brutal and effective, after WW2 we were sorta of shell shocked by the carnage we had observed and started changing our war plans to be more concious of the populace, less over all damaging to them, and less brutal and that hasn;'t worked and we have lost most wars we have been in since because of this.

Another argument pops up with zero evidence.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why do you think I want the US to fail? That's a fucking dumb thing to attribute to me without any basis at all.

Because if the US produced a stable Afghan gov't that can reasonable protect itself and it's people, then it means the US was right in its actions. Considering you've been going on with the US is wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the US to succeed, it also would mean you were wrong.

Also what happened to the guy who wanted the Saudi Execution stats (check page 2)?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Another argument pops up with zero evidence.

Korea: Don't cross into China or better yet, just eject them.
Vietnam: Don't go above the DMZ and take it to the NVA/VC.

Those were wars stalemated or lost, not because of the military, but because of a lack of political willpower to finish the job. I'm not saying anything related to his argument overall just to the concept that we have lost wars not due to military means, but publicity.

 

[methos75]

Another argument pops up with zero evidence.

There is tons of evidence on this, especially in regards to Vietnam and most coomanders of that time stated their hands were tied by Congress and others and that fact killed any chance we had of winning. And you have to look at things from my point of view, I have had buddies killed and seen operations fail because of this stupid debate over winning hearts and minds, so of course I do not see it as a logical attempt anymore.

 

[RiskyChris]

Because if the US produced a stable Afghan gov't that can reasonable protect itself and it's people, then it means the US was right in its actions. Considering you've been going on with the US is wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the US to succeed, it also would mean you were wrong.

Also what happened to the guy who wanted the Saudi Execution stats (check page 2)?

Here you go again about how I am so anti-american. Why do you think I'm trying to avoid being wrong? You're again putting words and ideas in my mouth.

Whether the US being right in its actions by propping up a government is also worthy of debate.

 

[Kinitari]

Us trying to be PC and winning the minds and hearts is working either, in fact our pussy footing around the locals is why we are not winning and why so many of us are dying. Our needless drive to try to be both friend and aggessor in the AOR has lead to SOPs and security procedures that make no logical sense and place us in danger. Something needs to be done and quickly, us trying to be soft over there is helping so we need to step up how aggressive we are rather those who have never fought in combat agree or not.

Against civilian populations I absolutely agree, but I would have to wonder if against some specific and limited targets, it might have use (Commanders, Taliban Shadow Governors, etc), and by that I mean using WP, Explosive tipped rounds, etc, think that will leave the target either burnt, sticky, or being a lot less top heavy. It sends a message that there is retribution and that these leaders can't protect themselves. The drones do that now to an extent.

You guys don't understand. I am not an expert, I haven't really met many (if any) extreme Muslims, but I know Islam, and I know plenty of Muslims. You are fighting an ideology that can't be destroyed by killing or scaring. This ideology celebrates death in the struggle against the enemy. These people are not afraid to sacrifice their own family, let alone their neighbors and cities. They will blow themselves up!

You need to understand, a man down on his luck who cant feed or clothe his family - he is given food for his tables and clothes for his kids back. And better yet, he is given a target to vent his frustrations, to apply his hatred and contempt. These Americans, these infidels these outsiders are the reasons for my suffering, not my brothers, my relatives, my fellow Muslims.

And what happens when you become brutal? Do you sway those considering terrorism? Those who are considering terrorism wont be swayed by a show of brutality, they will be fueled by it. I bet there are even a few out there who look at the tactics of the Terrorists and the Westerners and think "No matter what everyone says, at least the Americans don't cut off heads and blow people up to scare me".

 

[Jex]

Because if the US produced a stable Afghan gov't that can reasonable protect itself and it's people, then it means the US was right in its actions. Considering you've been going on with the US is wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the US to succeed, it also would mean you were wrong.

I imagine he's also arguing that it would be "morally" wrong, and in that case "victory" wouldn't mean that the US is "right" in it's actions. Still, I don't see victory happening either.

Those were wars stalemated or lost, not because of the military, but because of a lack of political willpower to finish the job. I'm not saying anything related to his argument overall just to the concept that we have lost wars not due to military means, but publicity.

But he was saying we weren't brutal enough. We were pretty brutal in Vietnam and Korea, and we didn't get anywhere with those wars.

And to claim we lost these wars because of "publicity" is an even crazier argument without any evidence.

And you have to look at things from my point of view, I have had buddies killed and seen operations fail because of this stupid debate over winning hearts and minds, so of course I do not see it as a logical attempt anymore.

I do have to agree that it's a policy which, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been particularly effective. Then again I haven't check any studies on the matter, but it doesn't sound likely.

 

[SmokyDave]

This is a shit argument. I know for a fact that our mere presence bolsters their cause. Our killing civilians bolsters their cause. Our being brutal and morally senseless bolsters their cause.

This is common knowledge, not speculation. I'm not claiming to fully understand the region, but if you disagree with the above tenets you are insane.

Perversely then, we're in agreement. We shouldn't be there. It's just a question of whose methods leave us there the longest. I'm curious as to why you're concerned with bolstering their cause further when you readily admit, it's about as bolstered as it's going to get. They don't need our provocation, they just use it as an excuse (civilians aside).

 

[RiskyChris]

Perversely then, we're in agreement. We shouldn't be there. It's just a question of whose methods leave us there the longest. I'm curious as to why you're concerned with bolstering their cause further when you readily admit, it's about as bolstered as it's going to get. They don't need our provocation, they just use it as an excuse (civilians aside).

Ugh, how the fuck did you extract that bit from what I said? I said our presence now bolsters their cause, and any further actions will further bolster their cause. At no point would I suggest that it's "as bolstered as it's gonna get."

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You guys don't understand. I am not an expert, I haven't really met many (if any) extreme Muslims, but I know Islam, and I know plenty of Muslims. You are fighting an ideology that can't be destroyed by killing or scaring. This ideology celebrates death in the struggle against the enemy. These people are not afraid to sacrifice their own family, let alone their neighbors and cities. They will blow themselves up!

Yeah, but they aren't robots, they are ruled by human emotions and also doubt. They're no different then the Japanese in WWII (in fact in some ways, the Japanese are the best to compare against), fiercely loyal, but still human as you and I..

You need to understand, a man down on his luck who cant feed or clothe his family - he is given food for his tables and clothes for his kids back. And better yet, he is given a target to vent his frustrations, to apply his hatred and contempt. These Americans, these infidels these outsiders are the reasons for my suffering, not my brothers, my relatives, my fellow Muslims.

Hence why you never attack a civilian population or use brutal means (as the Russians did, it's pointless). What you do is take the situation you describe and reverse it.

And what happens when you become brutal? Do you sway those considering terrorism? Those who are considering terrorism wont be swayed by a show of brutality, they will be fueled by it. I bet there are even a few out there who look at the tactics of the Terrorists and the Westerners and think "No matter what everyone says, at least the Americans don't cut off heads and blow people up to scare me".

Depends who you target. I doubt a farmer gives two shits if some Tablian Regional Commander gets his head blown off, barring any familial relation, but he will care if you bomb the crap out of his farmland.

And to claim we lost these wars because of "publicity" is an even crazier argument without any evidence.

The Tet Offensive was a PR stunt, it in terms of men and material hurt the VC/NVA more then it ever did the US, the coverage and Cronkite backstab were the real damage.

 

[SmokyDave]

Ugh, how the fuck did you extract that bit from what I said? I said our presence now bolsters their cause, and any further actions will further bolster their cause. At no point would I suggest that it's "as bolstered as it's gonna get."

Fair point.

I still say we're pissing into a hurricane once we start worrying about what offends radical muslims. It's ridiculous and untenable.

 

[RiskyChris]

Fair point.

I still say we're pissing into a hurricane once we start worrying about what offends radical muslims. It's ridiculous and untenable.

What's ridiculous is making the fight on the ground worse. Your opinion is wrong.

 

[scorcho]

Fair point.

I still say we're pissing into a hurricane once we start worrying about what offends radical muslims. It's ridiculous and untenable.

it's not about offending 'radical' Muslims, it's about providing further grievances for these groups to use in recruiting members into their ranks more easily. that was the whole point of McCrystal's (somewhat misguided) focus on winning the 'hearts and minds' of Afghan citizenry - minimizing civilian casualty and taking greater pains to put a more public/humane face on the operation.

 

[SmokyDave]

What's ridiculous is making the fight on the ground worse. Your opinion is wrong.

Righto. I want an end to this war asap. I gave my reasons earlier. If things have to get worse to get better, so be it. Sooner that than a bunch of people wring their hands and debate morality whilst soldiers eat bullets for breakfast.

it's not about offending 'radical' Muslims, it's about providing further grievances for these groups to use in recruiting members into their ranks more easily. that was the whole point of McCrystal's (somewhat misguided) focus on winning the 'hearts and minds' of Afghan citizenry - minimizing civilian casualty and taking greater pains to put a more public/humane face on the operation.

They can recruit by force if needs be. That's one of the benefits of being prepared to act like you're fighting a war. That and the fact that our very existence serves as a recruiting drive. How are you going to get around that?

I do feel it is essential to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible, regardless of whether you want their hearts & minds or not.

I think the bigger issue is trying to breed as few new terrorists and radicals as possible. Step 1. Get the fuck out of there. Step 2. While we are there, step on as few toes as possible.

I don't feel that can be done. The thing you are fighting cannot be killed and you can't wound it as quickly as it can repair itself.

 

[Kinitari]

Fair point.

I still say we're pissing into a hurricane once we start worrying about what offends radical muslims. It's ridiculous and untenable.

I think the bigger issue is trying to breed as few new terrorists and radicals as possible. Step 1. Get the fuck out of there. Step 2. While we are there, step on as few toes as possible.

 

[RiskyChris]

it's not about offending 'radical' Muslims, it's about providing further grievances for these groups to use in recruiting members into their ranks more easily. that was the whole point of McCrystal's (somewhat misguided) focus on winning the 'hearts and minds' of Afghan citizenry - minimizing civilian casualty and taking greater pains to put a more public/humane face on the operation.

Yea but being nice to terrorists yarrgh I'm so emotional!!

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I think the bigger issue is trying to breed as few new terrorists and radicals as possible. Step 1. Get the fuck out of there. Step 2. While we are there, step on as few toes as possible.

Step 1 won't work even if you don't think that the people recruited in Afghanistan will ever threaten the US, they will threaten Pakistan by being allowed to act with impunity. An unsecured Afghanistan will become an even bigger base of operations for people who want to overthrow the Pakistani government. If the Pakistan government ever comes close to falling can you imagine the mess it will be, just when trying to secure their warheads, considering all the regional and global powers who will be drawn in?

In short: fight in Afghanistan now or fight in Islamabad later.

 

[arstal]

Korea: Don't cross into China or better yet, just eject them.
Vietnam: Don't go above the DMZ and take it to the NVA/VC.

Those were wars stalemated or lost, not because of the military, but because of a lack of political willpower to finish the job. I'm not saying anything related to his argument overall just to the concept that we have lost wars not due to military means, but publicity.

To Really pacify the Afghani population and stop the Taliban would probably mean killing half of them, or worse. I do truly believe that. I don't think we're ready to do that, and that's not a bad thing. It takes a certain amount of barbarianism to deal with religious extremists- which the West hasn't had since Westphalia. Again , being the alternative might say as much about ourselves as it does the Taliban.

That said, when I was in the service, the whole point of the Geneva Conventions as taught to us, was that our enemies would respond in kind. With Islamic Radicals, that's been proven not to apply- so unless you feel future enemies would throw out the conventions vs us, there's really no reason to follow them. (but no reason to deliberately not apply them, aka cut heads out for jollies- I'm not advocating that either)

In this case it's obvious that the guy was trying to do things for military purposes, so I hope he isn't convicted at a court-martial.

 

[RiskyChris]

Haha, no point in following the geneva conventions, from a former service member. Wow.

 

[scorcho]

Korea: Don't cross into China or better yet, just eject them.
Vietnam: Don't go above the DMZ and take it to the NVA/VC.

Those were wars stalemated or lost, not because of the military, but because of a lack of political willpower to finish the job. I'm not saying anything related to his argument overall just to the concept that we have lost wars not due to military means, but publicity.

the military works to service political ends, not the other way around. and, frankly, the 'loss' of Vietnam and North Korea rightly showed the limits of projecting military power abjectly against a resourceful, passionate 'enemy'.

That said, when I was in the service, the whole point of the Geneva Conventions as taught to us, was that our enemies would respond in kind. With Islamic Radicals, that's been proven not to apply- so unless you feel future enemies would throw out the conventions vs us, there's really no reason to follow them. (but no reason to deliberately not apply them, aka cut heads out for jollies- I'm not advocating that either)

so there's no higher purpose or utility of the Geneva Conventions other than reciprocation?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

the military works to service political ends, not the other way around.

I concur.

and, frankly, the 'loss' of Vietnam and North Korea rightly showed the limits of projecting military power abjectly against a resourceful, passionate 'enemy'.

It shows more the weakness of the leadership in its ability to decide what the goal was in the campaign.

 

[Flo_Evans]

You will never be able to win the hearts and minds of a people with military force. Rationing the use of force does nothing to make it seem like we are the 'good' guys

The military is for fucking shit up. If you don't think demoralizing the enemy and making him fear you is part of that then you need to study military tactics some more.

Wars are not won by making friends. Wars are won when an enemy can see that resistance is futile and if they continue to resist it will be their certain doom.

If we really want to 'win' in the middle east, we are going to have to be more brutal than the taliban. Most people here cannot stomach that. Understandable. It is not something I am really comfortable with.

We need to either pack our shit and go, or fuck their shit up so bad they submit. That is the only way this stupid war will 'end'.

 

[arstal]

Haha, no point in following the geneva conventions, from a former service member. Wow.

Misinterpreting. I'm not saying go out to rape and pillage, but I'm saying that the Geneva convention does not apply to criminals, just enemy combatants.

Taliban= criminals, pure and simple. They don't carry identification or wear uniforms. Bush's "unlawful combatant" status is valid and correct.

As for the Geneva convention, it's main purpose is reciprocation. There are other purposes of course, but I do not think they work on religious fanatics.

Note: we should follow the Geneva conventions vs armies and other organized forces. Just because someone is Muslim does not mean the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

That said, I'd argue that Christianity is the only religion that learned the futility of Religious Warfare. It took the Thirty Years War, and decimation of Germany with muskets and torches mostly to do so. If we had modern weapons then, I don't think there would be any Germans left if the Thirty Years War had happened 300 years later.

 

[Masta_Killah]

There is tons of evidence on this, especially in regards to Vietnam and most coomanders of that time stated their hands were tied by Congress and others and that fact killed any chance we had of winning. And you have to look at things from my point of view, I have had buddies killed and seen operations fail because of this stupid debate over winning hearts and minds, so of course I do not see it as a logical attempt anymore.

If I remember correctly, we were actually winning in Vietnam. The reason why we lost was because of those war footages that showed Americans dying. This lost the will of the people, which then forced the hands of Congress.

It's been the same story since as to why we continually lose wars. When the people start seeing the brutality of war, they lose heart and want to back out. The military tried to control the media when it went into Iraq, but that all fell apart once the invasion turned into an occupation.

 

[Jex]

If I remember correctly, we were actually winning in Vietnam. The reason why we lost was because of those war footages that showed Americans dying. This lost the will of the people, which then forced the hands of Congress.

Have we entered an age where incredibly complicated and multi-faceted events can be boiled down to inherently reductionist and incorrect statements?

Or is it just some people on the internet?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Have we entered an age where incredibly complicated and multi-faceted events can be boiled down to inherently reductionist and incorrect statements?

Or is it just some people on the internet?

You could write books on why we lost vietnam. The off-topic section of a videogame message board is not really the place to get into all of the reasons we lost there. Certainly not in a topic that has nothing to do with vietnam...

 

[Jex]

You could write books on why we lost vietnam. The off-topic section of a videogame message board is not really the place to get into all of the reasons we lost there. Certainly not in a topic that has nothing to do with vietnam...

Certainly.

Although this thread has generally ended up as "What kind of conduct would we countenance as necessary to "win" difficult wars?" which is pretty off the topic in itself.