"Victory or Failure in Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the ..." Topic

…Deciding Year

"The Trump administration says it has everything it needs to succeed in Afghanistan, but it also has a limited time to prove that it's right.

The war in Afghanistan will be decided in 2018, when a new military-heavy U.S. administration in Washington will prove whether its plan will be enough to overcome entrenched battlefield obstacles and convince skeptics that it is capable of putting an end to America's longest conflict.

Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan. Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming a haven to any terrorist group…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Meanwhile, back on planet earth.

We supported local forces like the Northern Alliance after 9/11 and the Taliban was defeated, but it was short-lived because the Taliban is resilient, has popular support and countries like Pakistan give them sanctuary.

Now there are allegations (though denied) that the Russians are supplying the Taliban. Have we not learned from the Soviets' own bitter experience in the 1980's that such wars are unwinnable in the long run?

In the movie "Dune", the Emperor had the right idea about ending his troubles on that planet when he said he wanted all life on the planet eradicated. He just wasn't able to properly execute that idea even though he sent in his entire army.

Western democracies are incapable of that type of thought. We have technologically superior militaries but we do not have the national will to win this type of fight.

So are you calling for genocide? Seems odd for a supposed veteran to advocate for war crimes.

So. We are supposed to base our foreign policy on a degenerate nut from a bad science fiction book and evenense worse movie.
Got it.
But, in a sense I sort of agree with you.
If you "know what needs to be done", and are too civilized to do it, get the hell out.
Why does anyone think Afghanistan is worth fighting? "We have shed blood there!" is a pretty dumb reason. "Let's go shed some more!"

USAF pilot isn't calling for genocide. I think what he's saying, and what I believe, is that you can't win this type of war with one arm tied round your back. The Rules of Engagement we operate under are unbelievably restrictive, I'm not saying exterminate all afghans, but you have to expect a lot of collateral damage if you want to win. The only thing an Afghan respects is power, not money or democracy. All the ones I met didn't give a monkeys who was in charge, as long as they were left alone they were happy.

USAF Pilot isn't calling for genocide.

You could have fooled me. All I did was read the words he wrote.

I don't read it like that, but I could be wrong, he might elaborate later.

I don't think the Soviets were overly restrictive in their ROE when they invaded and occupied Afghanistan for the better part of a decade. Some wars just can't be won because the enemy is elusive and is much more patient.

As I mentioned in this thread:

TMP link

the times have changed.

A few points:

#1 Foxweasel is correct; I am not calling for genocide. I'm using the novel Dune to illustrate a point. No one questions that the US has a technologically superior military; but as a nation we sometimes lack the national will to fight to our full potential. As Foxweasel says, you can't win with one arm tied behind your back.

#2 Some wars/battles cannot be won. The Emperor in Dune not only had the best military in all the galaxy, but he also had the 'will' to use it to the fullest extent, and still lost. He was fighting against religious fanatics on their home turf who literally believed they were fighting on God's side. As Paul says in the end, "We Fremen have a saying: "God created Arrakis to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of God." No one can ever truly defeat an enemy with those beliefs.

#3 "Dune is a science fiction media franchise that originated with the 1965 novel Dune by Frank Herbert. Dune is frequently cited as the best-selling science fiction novel in history." Dune won the Hugo Award for best science fiction novel.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

#3 "Dune is a science fiction media franchise that originated with the 1965 novel Dune by Frank Herbert. Dune is frequently cited as the best-selling science fiction novel in history." Dune won the Hugo Award for best science fiction novel.

Am I not allowed to think that it's overhyped, and poorly written?
Sorry, but the Hugo award is not a guarantee of quality and never was. It's just an award that fans vote on. Nor are sales a guarantee of quality.

The movie stunk too. When the theatre handed out mimeographed sheets explaining who was who, I knew I was in trouble. Well, maybe not me, but the movie certainly was.

Am I not allowed to think that it's overhyped, and poorly written?
Sorry, but the Hugo award is not a guarantee of quality and never was. It's just an award that fans vote on. Nor are sales a guarantee of quality.

The movie stunk too.

I feel the same way about 'Ender's Game.' I just don't understand how this overrated book could have won both the Hugo and Nebula awards.

And yes, the movie stunk too.

When the theatre handed out mimeographed sheets explaining who was who, I knew I was in trouble. Well, maybe not me, but the movie certainly was.

It's called a Dramatis Personae. Usually required for plays with a large cast of characters, but I guess 'Dune' is a sprawling space opera with lots of people to follow.

Am I not allowed to think that it's overhyped, and poorly written?

You are allowed to think whatever you want; and I am too. But you said 'we' when you made your comment about a 'bad science fiction book', as if it was an established fact. I merely pointed out that it is an established fact that the book has received popular acclaim. I agree with you that awards and high sales do not equate to quality. I can think of many examples. However, IMHO, Dune is an excellent and thought provoking story in both book and movie form.

Seems odd for a supposed veteran to advocate for war crimes.

Why? Who do you think commit war crimes? …supposed civilians?

As far as I am concerned, the whole Dune franchise is rubbish. The "fact" that many disagree with me changes nothing.

Winston, the fact that you think it is rubbish changes nothing as far as I am concerned. I think it is one of the best science fiction books I have ever read. So there.

…you can't win this type of war with one arm tied round your back. The Rules of Engagement we operate under are unbelievably restrictive, I'm not saying exterminate all afghans, but you have to expect a lot of collateral damage if you want to win.

If it's not 100% of Afghans to be exterminated, then is 90% an acceptable number? 70%? 50%? How much "collateral damage" (don't you just love euphemisms, so antiseptic, like "liquidate"?) is justifiable? Care to sketch out the outer bounds of what is OK to achieve victory, especially for a country like the US which is the paragon and example of the world?

Collateral damage isn't a euphemism, it's a targeting term. Stop trying to twist what I said, if you want to achieve anything in countries like Afghanistan then civilian casualties have to be expected. How many is down to the feeling of the people of the time. In WW2 100% civilian casualties would have been acceptable to a lot of people, now most don't have the appetite for it (except the enemy) So I can't"sketch out" what is ok, that's down to politicians, I'll just carry on doing what they tell me.

If it's not 100% of Afghans to be exterminated, then is 90% an acceptable number? 70%? 50%? How much "collateral damage" (don't you just love euphemisms, so antiseptic, like "liquidate"?) is justifiable? Care to sketch out the outer bounds of what is OK to achieve victory, especially for a country like the US which is the paragon and example of the world?

Begemot, so what is your acceptable percent of collateral damage??? Care to sketch out the outer bounds of what is OK to achieve victory.

Begemot, so what is your acceptable percent of collateral damage???

If I have to hazard a guess, I'd say it's 0 percent.

foxweasel and USAFpilot: Thank you responding. While your comments didn't directly answer the question, they were sufficient for what I was trying to determine.

A pedantic point: 'collateral damage' may be a term used for military targeting, but it is still a euphemism. From the online Oxford dictionary ( link ) :

euphemism: A mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
‘the jargon has given us ‘downsizing' as a euphemism for cuts'

The term 'collateral damage' minimizes the reality of what often happens when military fire power is brought to bear on targets in close proximity to non-military targets ( like non-combatant civilians ) . Back in the day when I was reading Hermann Kahn, the jargon/euphemism for incinerating cities and the populations was to call them 'countervalue' targets.

Fanatick – if 0 percent collateral damage was possible would you object to that?

What were you trying to determine?

Begemot, "if 0 percent collateral damage was possible", I would not object to that. It sounds like a decent goal for military planners to aspire to and it would certainly be my starting point for planning military operations. No one wants to kill innocent civilians (over wise known by the euphemism, 'non-combatants'.) I'm turning the question back to you; what is your acceptable percent of collateral damage that you would allow to accomplish your objective. Let's say it is WW2 and you are fighting Germany. What percent of collateral damage would you except in order to end the Nazi Holocaust?

By the way the late great comedian George Carlin had some very funny things to say about euphemisms. Euphemisms are everywhere. I see your point that the phrase 'collateral damage' is in some ways a euphemism, but I suspect that is is also a very clearly defined military and legal term. For instance the military uses specific words for targeting. Saying you want the enemy target "neutralized" is not a euphemism for "kill", but has a very specific military definition which is very different then say you want the target "destroyed", or "disrupted", or "delayed", or "attritted", etc. Each word means something different and the type of munitions used would be different.

I think Collateral Damage was a matter of precision. If you call them "Dead Civilians" or "Civilian Casualties" you aren't differentiating between the ones killed by accident and the ones killed intentionally. It may not matter to the civilians, but the distinction is important to a courts marshal for example.
As far as the 0 percent target, when it is possible we can discuss it. It isn't right now and the enemy takes advantage of the West's aversion to collateral damage to hide their troops.

USAFPilot:

I will note that you did not answer my question, but instead merely reflected my question back towards me. This is an evasive rhetorical device intended to get your interlocutor to make himself appear foolish (0%?! What a naif! A hopeless fool!) or concede your position without effort on your part (See! Even 0.5% concedes the point! It's now only a matter of degrees, you foolish dog!). I have never thought much of the Air Force, but what can you expect from an infantryman. I remain confirmed in my estimation.

So, being an obliging sort, I will knowingly fall into your trap and offer the following: I will accept the percentage you think the enemy is entitled to inflict on your family as the proper percentage for collateral damage. What, do you propose, that value is?

AH! But wait! As I work through your response I see that you have deployed the ultimate rhetorical weapon: The Nazi Holocaust! Well, that changes everything. There is no defense against that argument. To stop the Nazi's I will assert, so that I may be allowed to remain a member of polite society, that the correct percentage is …110%! Every lousy German (and their little dogs too – hence the additional 10%) deserves death to halt the Holocaust! And going forward every villain dejour (as they are inevitably declared the reincarnation of Hitler) deserves no less than 110% (they have dogs too I suspect).

The correct answer, due to your great forensics skills, is therefore 110% for them and 0% against US!

That bug got me! Please put your last into infantryman speak so that I can understand it.

I will accept the percentage you think the enemy is entitled to inflict on your family as the proper percentage for collateral damage.

So your answer is 0%.

So you won't think I'm not answering your question. My answer is 100%.

When the US dropped an atomic bomb on a city in Japan during WW2, I'm pretty sure the intent was 100% collateral damage. The point being it was so horrible that Japan would end the war and the US would save many thousands of lives from all sides by not having to conduct a land invasion of mainland Japan.

We could go with your idea of 0% in Afghanistan and just invite the Taliban over for some tea and crumpets, and sing 'Kum Ba Yah'. I'm sure we would have peace in no time.

It must be nice to live in a world of unicorns and rainbows.

In fact I'm in the 100% camp as well, the whole of that backward s#£hole isn't worth the life of one coalition soldier. So if we have to take life to preserve life, so be it. Courageous restraint was the most stupid idea in the history of warfare.