Help support TMP


"At war with the truth" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Amazon's Fighting Snowmen

Who has armed the snowmen, and to whom does their allegiance belong?


Featured Profile Article

Ammunition Hill 1967

Ammunition Hill was the most fortified Jordanian position that the Israelis faced in 1967.


Current Poll


470 hits since 9 Dec 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2019 12:42 p.m. PST

"U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

The documents were generated by a federal project examining the root failures of the longest armed conflict in U.S. history. They include more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2019 7:43 p.m. PST

Political pressure was applied to the military to blatantly lie, and/or stretch the truth beyond the breaking point, to make things look better for those in charge.

It was caught, and reported on back then, that much of what we were hearing was "wishful thinking".

Clearly, history has proven that to be correct, as even those not in the intelligence loop can tell, given our overly long presence there.

TGerritsen Supporting Member of TMP10 Dec 2019 8:40 a.m. PST

I ask this question based on historical precedent, as this is not the first time that this type of thing has happened. I keep hearing that the reason we don't pull out of Afghanistan is that we don't want to make the sacrifices of those that died be in vain.

However, based on history as a guide, are those that died better honored by sticking with a failing campaign and trying to find a way to make it work, or by acknowledging that even if the goal is achieved, the cost is too much and accepting what successes you did gain and going home?

Which would history deem the better option?

This is a general question not meant to be a political commentary since the linked article implies that both parties were guilty of making the same mistakes.

USAFpilot10 Dec 2019 11:02 a.m. PST

However, based on history as a guide, are those that died better honored by sticking with a failing campaign and trying to find a way to make it work, or by acknowledging that even if the goal is achieved, the cost is too much and accepting what successes you did gain and going home?

The way your question is phrased, I would say 'no'. The dead are not better honored by sticking with a failing campaign. They are honored for their service no matter the outcome.

Most would agree that the US was justified in attacking AQ in Afghanistan after 9/11. But mission creep occurred and it has turned into a forever war with no easy solutions. Sometimes it's just damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Dec 2019 11:34 p.m. PST

Sadly, we are still swatting at the bees, and not going in to eliminate their hives in Pakistan, where they are based.

A certain individual promised to do that, but then did nothing.

Lion in the Stars12 Dec 2019 7:27 p.m. PST

A certain individual is stuck under an authorization-for-use-of-force that does not allow attacks on US allies. And for whatever inexplicable reason, Pakistan is still a US ally.

I suppose the final discussion point would have to be the US telling Pakistan to either destroy those hives themselves or find themselves no longer a US ally (and therefore no longer protected from attack by that AfUoF).

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.