Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Afghanistan and Obama
In my opinion, Ross Douthat (with Vinegar Joe Lieberman) gets a lot right in this column. Namely:
- In a conversation last week, the Connecticut senator was careful to avoid taking the president to task for pausing before he escalates. After seven years of war, Lieberman noted, we’ve only now “begun the first serious national debate about Afghanistan: whether we should be there and what we should be doing there. In that regard, it’s entirely appropriate that the president is deliberating.”
- But if Obama takes us deeper into war out of political necessity rather than conviction, the results could be disastrous. That’s because the counterinsurgency strategy he’s contemplating is the worst possible option — except for all the others. It looks attractive only because the alternatives involve abandoning southern Afghanistan to the Taliban’s tender mercies, playing Whac-a-Mole with Al Qaeda from afar with hopelessly inadequate intelligence and pushing the nuclear-armed Pakistani military back into a marriage of necessity with a resurgent Taliban next door.
- “My hope,” Lieberman told me, is that once Obama finishes his “very public process of deliberation, he will have brought the public along with him” — and placed the war effort on a firmer footing in the process. But the president can only bring the country with him if he really believes in the war that he’s inherited. For now, that remains an open question. And if Obama takes us deeper into a conflict for which he doesn’t really have the stomach, then the outcome will almost certainly be tragic — for him, for us, and for Afghanistan.
It's fair to say you guys know my thoughts and my worries about this war. But while I have my own preferences on policy and strategy, the most important thing now is for the president to carefully deliberate, make an informed decision weighing the risks and chances of success of various courses of action, and to then stick to that decision with Churchillian stubbornness.
***
By the way, did any of you read this trash? Spencer says most of what needs to be said but not all. I'm not going to start hitting below the belt, and coming as I do from the field of strategic studies, I believe those who have never seen combat nonetheless might have a lot of intelligent things to say about conflict. But all I'm saying is that if you're going to write sentences like "Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink," you better, in light of Gen. McChrystal's own curriculum vitae, have a glittering combat resume of your own. If you have never, in fact, been to war yourself, you might want to be a bit more measured in your criticism.
Exum, once and for all,
Exum, once and for all, please state a clear position on the debate instead of trying to be all things to all people: Do you support a 20-30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan per the request of Gen. McCrystal? Yes or No.
Oy vey
Oy vey
TSV: Yes, yes I support
TSV: Yes, yes I support McChrystal's recommendation. I thought my position regarding a properly-resourced COIN strategy was clear. Sorry.Tough words from a tough
Tough words from a tough man.
Weren't you just an REMF reservist?
Exum, the COIN campaign is
Exum, the COIN campaign is already lost.
So says the COIN bible FM 3-24.
As the NYT and WaPo print today, the U.S. and NATO want to except a Karzai victory that is based on massive well know election fraud. The want to accept an illegitimate Afghan government.
So what does the COIN bible say about this?
“6-1. Success in counterinsurgency (COIN) operations requires establishing a legitimate government supported by the people and able to address the fundamental causes that insurgents use to gain support.”
“8-42. All counterinsurgent actions must be those of agents of a legitimate and law-abiding HN government.”
The Karzai government - even if accepted by the U.S. and NATO - is neither legitimate nor law abiding in the eyes of the Afghan population. According to FM 3-24 the COIN campaign in Afghanistan thereby CAN NOT BE successful.
So why start it at all when it is obvious that it will fail?
If President Obama does
If President Obama does decide to commit more troops to Afghanistan, what is to keep allies with troops on the ground and whose populations are overwhelmingly against the war from saying we have come to a different conclusion and we will begin removing our troops. Doesn't this pause give allies a way out of Afganistan? Also, what is to become of NATO if the President decides not to up the ante in Afghanistan. What is the purpose of NATO if not a situation like Afghanistan.
Exum, the COIN campaign is
Exum, the COIN campaign is already lost.
So says the COIN bible FM 3-24.
As the NYT and WaPo print today, the U.S. and NATO want to except a Karzai victory that is based on massive well know election fraud. The want to accept an illegitimate Afghan government.
So what does the COIN bible say about this?
“6-1. Success in counterinsurgency (COIN) operations requires establishing a legitimate government supported by the people and able to address the fundamental causes that insurgents use to gain support.”
“8-42. All counterinsurgent actions must be those of agents of a legitimate and law-abiding HN government.”
The Karzai government - even if accepted by the U.S. and NATO - is neither legitimate nor law abiding in the eyes of the Afghan population. Thereby, according to FM 3-24, the COIN campaign in Afghanistan CAN NOT BE successful.
Why start it at all when it is obvious that it will fail?
Okay, well it is not the
Okay, well it is not the Garden, but Lang v. Nagl at NYU: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/.
Actually, I hope it is more WWF than WBF, that way in a dramatic twist nagl and lang can unite and double-team Wrasslin' Ralph.
Nerds, get your tickets now!
Bernhard: Your point about
Bernhard: Your point about FM 3-24 is a good one, but you forget the point that if we go in for a COIN option in Afghanistan instead it is going to start *now*. From what I read at Old Blues, that process is finally starting, with the teaching of basic principles to the ANA, something wich hasnt been properly done before. The idea is to build a government within a certain timeperiod that is more legitimate than the one that is now. In reality, it will propably be taking the political process at local levels to task, and leave the Karzais in their palaces with their fake positions, Emirs of fck all. Notice that is says "establishing", not "having a established".
ALso, now that we are pulling out of several areas (http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/09/25/withdrawal-is-not-surrender/) like Nuristan, then it leaves more resources to be freed to remaining areas. I hiope as hell that they arent forgetting the north.
Oh,a nd ont he Post story:
Oh,a nd ont he Post story: Someone should hire me, I saw that one coming three days ago.
I hope the above mentioned
I hope the above mentioned intelligence squared debate is better than the health care one with Cannon and Krugman, et al. I mean, it was fine, but they seemed always to skirt the most interesting questions. Key in my mind was the poor metric life expectancy serves as a proxy for health care, and, yet, it's the metric most commonly talked about. Perhaps it was the format.....
Also, 'cannot and will not succeed in Afghanistan' is a srsly goofy title.
Yeah fnord, if you can
Yeah fnord, if you can figure out how to use the space bar.
HUS: Good point.
HUS: Good point.
Exum and everyone else :) I
Exum and everyone else :)
I understand your thoughts after having succesfully practiced COIN in Iraq (5-73 Recon company commander in Diyala Province in 2006-07 for anyone wanting to fact check), and I share your concerns about Afghanistan. I highly admire GEN Patraeus and LTG McChrystal, but I'm concerned that we've allowed ourselves to replace COIN as a panacea for every social ill in the world. This manner of groupthink can only limit and constrain our decision-making.
I've spent the last couple of weeks following the A'stan debate and catching up on AQ's internal debate. I'll propose the following thoughts for everyone to consider as we try to find the best least-bad solution. I'm not anti-COIN just as I'm not anti-tank or infantry. I just want us to get this right.
-SOF does not equal SF.
-COIN does not equal FID.
-There are three types of wars, not two: Small, Medium, and Large. FID is the realm of small wars. GPF escalated COIN is the middle. We can choose the type of war we fight.
-Having accepted a loss in Iraq, AQ is changing strategies to a war of exhaustion.
-Clearing through the Pop-centric COIN mantra in Afghanistan ultimately may prove to be the modern-day version of a frontal assualt.
-It is better to find a way to manuever and breakout rather than assualt head on. "By, with, and through" is just one form of manuever through the human terrain.
v/r
Mike Few
So tell me Exum, do you
So tell me Exum, do you agree with the "new ROE"? If so give me one good reason. Have you ever been in the front where the bullet hit's the meat when a mission goes bad? When there are red flares going up all over the perimeter?
When the only possibility of survival is Arty or Air?
You said on another blog when I brought this up it was irrelevant to the conversation so therefore I was a troll.
How is this irrelevant to the conversation now?
Disgusted: You might want to
Disgusted: You might want to read Exums active service record.
Now someone correct me if Im wrong, but I dont see the new ROE as stating suicide is mandated in any way. What is being changed are the rules for agressive followup and use of CAS as a means of retaliation, rather than as a means for getting the fck out of there. I would be interested in seeing you link your grievances against the new ROE to some actual quotations.And no, I have not seen actual combat, just slogged through one year of draft.
Andrew: You say in your
Andrew:
You say in your post:
"But while I have my own preferences on policy and strategy, the most important thing now is for the president to carefully deliberate, make an informed decision weighing the risks and chances of success of various courses of action, and to then stick to that decision with Churchillian stubbornness."
How easy will it be for the President to do this when the Assessment that he received from General McChrystal told him that if he doesn't get the troops that he asked for we will "fail."?
Exum, thanks for the
Exum, thanks for the clarity, at long last. Now we can start going somewhere with the debate. I support your newly defined position too.
@AM - re "The Joker" --
@AM - re "The Joker" -- "...stick to that decision with Churchillian stubbornness."
AM, you're a civilian now, so it's OK to smoke loco weed...but maybe you shouldn't post high?
@fnord, you have always been
@fnord, you have always been a reasonable guy here. You ask me to...... lets see how did you put it......
"I dont see the new ROE as stating suicide is mandated in any way. What is being changed are the rules for agressive followup and use of CAS as a means of retaliation, rather than as a means for getting the fck out of there. I would be interested in seeing you link your grievances against the new ROE to some actual quotations.And no, I have not seen actual combat, just slogged through one year of draft."
I will challenge you to quoting the new ROE. I have picked up in the procces of my job at least three times that we have lost US Marines due to the German bombing of a couple of fuel trucks who were being looted by thief's
In one instance four Marines were killed. They were being shot at by "Taliban fighters" screened by "civilians" who were passing ammunition to the "fighters" By the new ROE they were not allowed to retaliate.
Explain the value of the "New ROE". Please. I realize you are not American. But imagine you trying to fight under those constrictions and watching YOUR men die due to them. Imagine having to write the letters to their family.
Imagine that and give me a fucking answer.
OK as a baseline, if the ROE
OK as a baseline, if the ROE are classified can someone share them so it can be debated?
Because at long last we are going to have a National Debate on the ROE. And it's already started. It's not just Peters (although I think he may reach more people than even this blog, sorry...but that has to be taken into consideration).
It's also the Glenn Beck show this AM (guest host Joe Pags) but you can bet the ROE are in the crosshairs.
And since Fish Eggs don't really make a sexy target - it has to be made a person.
So - a la Alinsky's practical methods - it's going to be personalized on - The Ground Commander. Personalize it. Freeze it. Focus on the Person you Personalized it on. That's the Pope.
There's going to be a debate on this at long last whether Super Ninja Generals, warrior scholar technocrats, geeks and the institution want to have it or not.
And citizens, privates, veterans and the parents of those concerned have the right and the duty to demand answers that make sense. Glittering or dull. Frankly if you can't make it make sense to common people (the ROE) than maybe it doesn't make sense. If Peters was accurate about the 2 ROE's he mentioned then those two rules are indefensible.
Mind you, we should have had it at the beginning, certainly we as citizens should have gotten angry and involved when Mullah Omar was let go because Franks felt he had to get the green light from JAG first.
Look, personally I say give you your 18 mos until 2010. But the COIN crowd needs to do a better job selling it.
And telling people they can't ask common sense questions because they don't have "glittering combat records"...
1) I think Peters has seen his share of war.
2) Not in our Republic, Dr Exum
3) You wouldn't challenge a Leftist this way. Or a Liberal. You wouldn't.
ROE - from Peters "trash"
*No indirect fire or Air Support unless it can be guaranteed there are absolutely no civilians in the area.
*If any Civilians appear while we are in contact with the Taliban, our troops are to break contact.
I simply can't believe those two things are true. The first one is insane, the second one vitiates the central aim of COIN. So please do clarify.
Can someone put up a link to the general purpose ROE, the one that fit on a card you carry in your pocket?
An interesting article from
An interesting article from The Guardian about whether aid money should be redirected to peaceful (northern) areas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/afghanistan-aid-money-united...
I'm not sure if any significant developement work is going on in more insecure, southern areas anyway. Would it make more sense to concentrate on more peaceful areas, where more can be achieved faster and spread out from there? Surely areas like Helmand, whose people have never seen much evidence of developement or the Karzai governments writ- and when confronted with such insecurity, just want to be left alone- should be left alone until such time as the positive benefits of a Kabul governement start filtering back to them.
If an under- resourced ISAF/ ANA presence is causing nothing but increased violence, with no chance of developement, could the 'whack a mole' scenario be used in certain internal zones, until the more stabilised zones start to bear fruit? Or would the small footprint inevitavbly lead to more reliance on air strikes and result in more civilian casualties and further alienation. If ISAF/ Afghan forces and NGO's were to retreat from insecure areas, would they have enough troops to even control the borders of these areas and stem the tide. Maybe another 40,000 troops will enable larger developement projects across all Afghanistan, I dont envy Obama.
Visitor, AM was certainly
Visitor, AM was certainly not a "REMF reservist" -- he led a platoon in 4-31 Infantry, 10th Mountain, in OEF in 2002, and a platoon in the Ranger Regiment in both OIF and OEF after that.
I suppose the question is,
I suppose the question is, if the govt has delegitimised itself with the election, do we stay even for the 12-18months originally requested as the COIN leap of faith, the give it a go phase, or start bugging out now.
@Bernhard, "Exum, the COIN
@Bernhard,
"Exum, the COIN campaign is already lost.
So says the COIN bible FM 3-24."
Are you serious? A book says something and you think that translates into reality on the ground? I think the govt's of hmmm .... let me see ...illegitimate govts doing just fine....
Burma, China, Iran, pick the African country of your choice....Chicago...the NY State Legislature...California...GWB according to the Dems...Cuba (it's a prison, folks)...NORK...The UN...Very soooooon enuf the Joker --I just saw him on TV leading an ad for home mortgage refinancing. Which is being run BTW by the sub prime lenders from 2 years ago. Their pitch ? We know you got a raw deal.
In an aside, I'm so glad he is finally getting some practical job experience. This should finally start to fill out his resume. And he can finally sell something again. It's critical to the salesman's psyche that they keep successfully selling. Otherwise they lose confidence and go the way of Wily Loman.
If the ANA gets better, starts winning, if whoever provides the people 1) security and 2) following that, services...if they start to go back to something like "normal" then they won't mind a dirty election so much.
Jesus Christ. Dirty elections making the govt illegitimate invalidates most of America's in the 19th century.
@elf AWESOME POST !!!! *No
@elf AWESOME POST !!!!
*No indirect fire or Air Support unless it can be guaranteed there are absolutely no civilians in the area.
*If any Civilians appear while we are in contact with the Taliban, our troops are to break contact.
That alone tells the story. By that alone we have no choice to leave and never return. Take our uniforms off and disband the US military.
The next step is to write the final page into the last US history book.
We went out with a whimper. In the final days of the USA we were not allowed to shoot back nor fight in any way.
We protested the restrictions placed upon us but it fell on deaf UN ears. After trying to defend our men and finding ourselves unable to do so, we abandoned all attempts to fight. We left where we could and died where we couldn't
When we got home, those few of us who did, even our old Soldiers were taking down the flag for the last time.
FYI: Francis Lieber -
FYI: Francis Lieber - generally known as the father of the modern laws of war, held a position considerably to the right of Colonel Peters on this issue.
Fortunately, Professor Lieber is dead, so he doesn't mind being called a fool. Nor does Colonel Callwell. Of course, being dead doesn't make you right. But still, Exum, you might want to pick on someone your own (intellectual) size for a change.
@Disgusted... Dude I don't
@Disgusted...
Dude I don't know if that is the ROE, or on it. I have been asking for a link to the ISAF ROE GTA (card) or a short list - like the troopies carry in the shirt cargo pocket in Iraq. Not asking for mission specific ROE, or classified documents.
Then we can have an intelligent and informed debate.
But people should know at long last the debate about ROE has begun ....
So here's your chance to get out in front of the story and take your case to the people, battle shysters...
(I hate to say it, but I don't think Peters is wrong. He does have pretty good access).
"The next step is to write
"The next step is to write the final page into the last US history book.
We went out with a whimper. In the final days of the USA we were not allowed to shoot back nor fight in any way.
We protested the restrictions placed upon us but it fell on deaf UN ears. After trying to defend our men and finding ourselves unable to do so, we abandoned all attempts to fight. We left where we could and died where we couldn't"
Please keep your Glenn Beck histrionics away from the blog I love. TYIA
Let me give you all a
Let me give you all a perspective, and a true one by the way. It's not opinion it's fact. Perhaps you will give a shit perhaps you won't here it is.
" when you enter a combat team as a FNG you aren't exactly "welcomed" you are accepted. We will withhold trust till we know you" There you go. Get your shit in one sock and be ready to fight beside your team mates right?
How you perform will dictate that trust right?
Wrong !!!!
When you enter a team like that you find that it's about knowing the individuals around you better than anyone else you have ever known. Many equate it to how you know your wife or your son or your father or your mother.
It's more intimate than that.
It's the bare brutal honesty brought about by shared fear, maybe never being able to ever express it to anyone else before you die. Maybe because you know you can't escape the danger and still live with yourself.
More probably it's because you have a duty that you share with these men, but more than a duty a code that says " if I die Please take all that i am and tell my kid's or my mother what I was here. I trust you to tell them EVERYTHING that you feel they should know"
Then watch those men die because of some fucking assine rule to protect the enemy.
I have never served in Afghanistan. My service was done long before most of you were born.
I know what it means to serve, I know what it is like to be in the perimeter when the red flares go off.
I know what it feels like to write a letter for a teammate with personal problems his wife and kid's don't know about.
Take this for what it's worth. I will never get this personal again here.
Disgusted.
My predicted endgame in
My predicted endgame in Afghanistan - in one Google query.
It would certainly not be the first time that warriors with distinguished military records told the press what it wanted to hear. Heck, it wouldn't even be the first time this century. Yet I have yet to see anyone even consider addressing the question: what is the difference between CNAS's "hearts and minds" strategy in Afghanistan, and the British "hearts and minds" strategy in Basra? Because the latter was certainly what the very same press wanted to hear.
And we certainly know how the latter turned out. Those who fail to learn from history, etc. If anyone in the early 21st century is incapable of seeing that a peacekeeping force cannot win a war, learning from history is definitely not his or her strong point.
@ Mencius Moldbug " Those
@ Mencius Moldbug
" Those who fail to learn from history, etc. If anyone in the early 21st century is incapable of seeing that a peacekeeping force cannot win a war, learning from history is definitely not his or her strong point."
I agree
Visitor 6:10 when you can
Visitor 6:10 when you can engage in a reasonable debate without being a troll please do ( wow did I the "troll" say that)?
@ elf, Peters isn't wrong.
@ elf, Peters isn't wrong. Due to restrictions imposed the ROE are not readily available.
To be blunt sir. I won't be the one to make em that way.
@ Mike F "Having accepted a
@ Mike F
"Having accepted a loss in Iraq, AQ is changing strategies to a war of exhaustion."
Is the above statement in your comment derived from, "catching up on AQ's internal debate," that you mentioned :) ?
Funny, for some reason, that made me think of the following from an article in SWJ, today:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/09/iran-nuke-revelation-wont-chan/
"Russian and Chinese leaders likely assume that the U.S. will have to expend great energy providing protection to Israel and the GCC countries, establishing a balance of power in the region against Iran. They are counting on America’s risk aversion to prevent a major war against Iran from breaking out. Meanwhile, if the U.S. ends up distracted by expanded Iranian-backed subversions, insurgencies, and proxy wars, so much the better for Russia and China."
Everyone wants to 'tie' us up, I guess, take the nimble and make the nimble slow, slow, slow; even in the economic sphere; especially in the economic sphere. Take the wealth creators and slow them down, slow them up, make them lumber. Okay, that last part might be a bit fanciful.
(SF, SOF, COIN, FID, etc makes me want to draw up a key of acronyms for posts around here. I dunno, I'm weird that way.)
ROE: Rules Of
ROE: Rules Of Engagement:
Definition; What we can and can't do in a military conflict.
There is the start of the "debate" elf if you will.
Who follows these "rules"? For those who are not military personnel. Are the ROE, different from the Rules of War, as set out by the Geneva Convention? If so why?
Why must we follow the ROE when no others in the ME follow the ROW?
Can we start there?
Exum says: "But while I have
Exum says: "But while I have my own preferences on policy and strategy, the most important thing now is for the president to carefully deliberate, make an informed decision weighing the risks and chances of success of various courses of action, and to then stick to that decision with Churchillian stubbornness."
If this president really cared, wouldn't he have met with McChrystal more than once? Our self-serving president is surrounded by self-serving think tanks, self-serving politicians -these people live in an altogether different reality. He WILL stick to his decision with Churchillian stubbornness, and his state-run media will tell us that we won despite the fact that Afghanistan could look like the South Vietnam in 1973.
What are the Taliban's
What are the Taliban's ROE?
Terrorize villages, capture daughters and force them into marriages, kill the village elders, throw acid on little girls going to school, smoke more little girls with machine guns before running off like cowards (little girls in A-stan must hit hard), always claiming that scores of women and children were killed in coalition air strikes regardless if they were or not, disguise yourself like a civilian while operating amongst them, claim to be the religion of peace, turn foreign aid fertilizer into bombs, rape women and forcibly convert them to Islam...
And people think that we can somehow find a moderate faction of this crew?
Exum: why do you have such a
Exum: why do you have such a problem with Ralph Peters? Is it that he makes you look bad?
So let's attack him, AM faithful! But like Belushi in Animal House, it looks like you are charged off toward your enemies by yourself. And it would seem that your grasp of history is about as pathetic (did we lay down when the Germans bombed us at Pearl Harbor?)
Were you in the reserves or
Were you in the reserves or not?
Colonel Gentile THANK YOU!
Colonel Gentile
THANK YOU!
So you folks who are all
So you folks who are all internationally informed, and Ivy league, can't handle the basics? Should I infer that ? I have a severe lack of comment and or debate that elf requested. Course I'm just a troll and the ROE and the ROW are irrelevant to the high minded ideals of those constituents who run the CNAS who advises the ..... ahem. president?
Is the President actually
Is the President actually deliberating over our options?
I see a great deal of time and energy devoted to arguing for health care reform. I've seen a pretty fair amount of time and energy devoted to discussion of a world free of nuclear weapons. I've seen meetings with Israelis and Palestinians. And so forth.
And today I see an article that the President has only talked to his commanding general once since taking over if Afghanistan.
Now I'm going to freely admit that I'm no military expert. I'm a relatively well informed layman. So someone tell me if this is standard practice. My suspicion, however, is that there's really no standard practice, because every war is different, but it doesn't seem rather odd to me that at a moment when everyone seems to think we're neck deep in shit and "deliberating" what to do about it, there's little visible evidence that the Executive branch is devoting much time and energy to the problem.
For that matter, what level of "strategery" is going to be effective here. As I understand it, here's the big picture personnel moves we've seen under the current administration.
* Toward the end of March, the President's new strategy is laid out.
* May. McKiernan gets sacked because he "doesn't get it".
* Is replaced with McChrystal, who fairly promptly begins asking for more resources.
* This results in a month long review of his request, and a reconsideration of our basic strategy... that had just been put in place a few months ago.
Like I said, I'm no expert, but I thought strategy was something you had to actually implement before you consider changing it.
Madhu- "@ Mike F- "Having
Madhu-
"@ Mike F- "Having accepted a loss in Iraq, AQ is changing strategies to a war of exhaustion."
Is the above statement in your comment derived from, "catching up on AQ's internal debate," that you mentioned :) ?"
Yes, that is what I was referring to. The USMA CTC website translates/publishes many captured AQ documents that are unclassified. I just spent some time reviewing them. Additionally, I've just been exploring other options for A'stan.
For instance, UBL and Zawahari have been hiding in Pakistan for a long time. They've established shadow govt's and training camps there. I'd recommend that we attack the enemy there first and then a lot of the issues with the Taliban would simmer down. No one discusses that option.
v/r
Mike
so despite the fact this
so despite the fact this blog is ostensibly about ROE and despite the fact Elf asked for debate on it and gave us the opportunity to debate it. We will shy away from it right?
NOT I ask again how do the ROE adapt to the ROW in this situation?
But never mind I am a goddamned troll right?
@ Mike, Christ Almighty,
@ Mike, Christ Almighty, They have 35 training camps in the US. What will you do about that? they have "diplomatic immunity and American support" Via liberal constituents We can't touch em they are here. Whats wrong with this picture?.
Yes, liberal constituents
Yes, liberal constituents favor giving diplomatic immunity and American support to those who blew up the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. It's the liberals, alright. What is this, Blackfive?
ROE, ROW Lets discuss those.
ROE, ROW Lets discuss those. Or is it a matter of you are unable to? I set out criteria that doesn't force anyone to break oaths but gives us a beginning to the debate. So did ELF ............................... I suspect that you all can't or won't because this is really a propaganda site rather than an honest debate site.
Tell me I am wrong. I sure want to be. I doubt that I am though.
Disgusted: "Explain the
Disgusted: "Explain the value of the "New ROE". Please. I realize you are not American. But imagine you trying to fight under those constrictions and watching YOUR men die due to them. Imagine having to write the letters to their family. Imagine that and give me a fucking answer."
To put it bluntly, I would imagine it being not so bad as writing home about someone who died in Iraq because Donny Rumsfeld had a dream about WMDs in Iraq he thought he could capitalize on. From my perspective, we lost this war in 2003, wich now means that the current operation is one of salvage and containment, not "Victory". And the current assessment of the people on the ground seems to be that the previous ROE was playing into the hands of the Talebs. It has therefore been decided that some dead marines are worth the price of changing the behaviour pattern wich lead to increased support for the Talebs. I would assume this is based on the thought that awakening the full wrath of the mujahedin network in the end would lead to more deaths of marines than the alternative. (Also, there are some obligations to occupying powers and civil9ians that come into play. Lawfare, I know, but still important.)
What I do find diconcerting is the tendency of folks to create myths about the ones up in the towers where the decisions were made. As Ackerman points out, very few are willing to go on record with the "General Betray-us" line, instead preferring a myth where the COIN folks, those liberal eggheads, have somehow slipped the genrals their liberal kool-aid. May I also point out that this discussion is a freaking blueprint of the pre-surge debate. I was very sceptical to the surge, but I remember exactly the point where I started seeing that it might suceed, at least as a military op. Can it be duplicated in at least parts of Afghanistan? I honestly dont know. But I have yet to see any alternative sketched out that sounds saner to me. My main worry is that its 6 years too late, and that the afghan people, at least in the south, are already lost. Better find some way of empowerment for the citizen against his own government.
Having said that, I too would be really interested in seeing the details of the new and improved ROE. Sometimes a change from one unbalanced position leads to unbalance the other way.
PS: I still dont understand
PS: I still dont understand why there are no muslim forces present in Afghanistan. Never understyood why the idea of a muslim foreign legion trained in COIN and reconstruction never got any traction, or even consideration. And I still dont understand why no plays for engaging the chinese there have been made.
Add your comment