Go Down
-
Some insight.... by RyanJP on 02 Dec, 2009 23:15
-
*warning* Due to this sensitivity of the whole matter and the policy in regards to political discussions on SBG I have a strong feeling that this will get pulled so I encourage anyone just to read or tread lightly. *warning*
....from a leader that actually has more sense and situational awareness.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569751126911522.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
I will not say anything other than are commander in chiefs "exit" date ( not strategy ) is a FU!@#$ DISGRACE !!! now I will STFU.
-
#1 by Mikekoz13 on 03 Dec, 2009 04:00
-
This article is a good read........
Let's not turn it into a heated political discussion guys..... that way it can stay on board.
My advice is to read it and then do what I did...... keep your political views out of the thread. -
#2 by tomgallagher on 03 Dec, 2009 06:24
-
Ho hum, OK Mike, whatever you say. (He said gritting his teeth)
-
#3 by Nonick on 03 Dec, 2009 06:29
-
OK, I'll take a try at this.
There is a lot of truth in what is said in the article, if you read it very carefully.
The final solution is not a military one; you start with the military securing the country (making it safe to bring in others) and then you have to bring in the NPO's (Non-Profit Organizations) to take care of, and educate the people. Challenges here include: culture and mind set. As a people, the Afghans are not as educated as the Iraqis and it may take longer to educate them to a level of understanding.
You also have to build up the country's ability to defend itself by itself and this may take more time (than Iraq). One example of why, is a briefing I heard where soldiers were teaching mathmatics to the Afghan men so they could properly use artillary (they didn't understand our math). If you can't properly use indirect fire, you only have a short range fighting capability.
Another factor is culture. Many (rural) Afghans are mainly concerned about their tribal unit and not the one in the next valley which is over the mountain.
There are other issues too, such as (re)building infrastructure, and the logistics is a huge matter when you look at the geographical layout. (But this is just a quick comment.)
-
#4 by RyanJP on 03 Dec, 2009 11:35
-
There you may not be any truth in the article whatsoever, its just a read I found on one of my Milblogs.
-
#5 by D.A.L.U.I. on 03 Dec, 2009 12:05
-
There was a movie I saw on DishTV recently, I believe it was titled "Charlie Wilson's War" and its take away was that after assisting the Afgani's resistance to the Russians, the US refused to support any significant recovery, with the implication that the vacumn created by that absence of support enabled the Taliban to entrench itself.
The current plan forward has the Afgani's and the Pakastani's upset, see today's NYT's article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04afghan.html?_r=1&hpw
It seems to me that placing a "pull out" date, which Gates on GMA this morning indicated was not written in stone but depends on performance by the local gov'ts and other support by our allies in NATO and the UN, may be enough of a whip as well as a carrot to move this off dead center. It's all we can hope for, but the locals are uncomfortable because as Charlie Wilson's War shows we have cut and run in the area before. -
#6 by tomgallagher on 03 Dec, 2009 12:28
-
If the Russians couldn't do it, I doubt very seriously that we can do it. With the corrupt Afghan government that the Afghans don't even trust and the fact that the enemy just crosses the border into Pakistan to get away from us the outlook is very dim. During the Vietnam war we were confronted by this scenario also. NVA troops used to run across the border into Cambodia to get away from us and you see what happened there. We finally had to bail out.
-
#7 by tomgallagher on 03 Dec, 2009 12:31
-
There was a movie I saw on DishTV recently, I believe it was titled "Charlie Wilson's War" and it's take away was that after assisting the Afgani's resistance to the Russians, the US refused to support any significant recovery, with the implication that the vacumn created by that absence of support enabled the Taliban to entrench itself.
The current plan forward has the Afgani's and the Pakastani's upset, see today's NYT's article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04afghan.html?_r=1&hpw
It seems to me that placing a "pull out" date, which Gates on GMA this morning indicated was not written in stone but depends on performance by the local gov'ts and other support by our allies in NATO and the UN, may be enough of a whip as well as a carrot to move this off dead center. It's all we can hope for, but the locals are uncomfortable because as Charlie Wilson's War shows we have cut and run in the area before.
I understand that after hearing that we were only going to hang in there for 18 months the Taliban issued a statement that they were going to hang in there for 19 months.