Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Hard to take the guy seriously when he talks like this:
He doesn't sound very professional. Being happy about tactical success is one thing, but being happy about; "whacking a bunch of guys".... They're probably better off without him in Afghanistan since the main goal there is to win the hearts and minds of the people and not whack as many as possible. The war in Afghanistan is first and foremost a war on poverty, authoritarianism and gender inequality. A kill'em all stratefy won't work there.
|
Thats pretty much a marine mentality though, I don't have a problem with him saying that. Soldiers are not creators of national policy, nor is anyone at a junior rank a creator of strategy, they're there to enforce it.
It reminds me of a quote that I read and I forget who said it but it went something like "We'll have peace here if I have to kill every son of a b$tch that oppossed it".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
We should be there for the main reason that a faction from there that was under the protection of their government attacked our closest ally. My only opposition to the mission is that I didn't think the former US administration cared enough about the war there.
|
This I completely agree with you on, Afghanistan has always been the place that should have garnered the most attention. While I'm happy that one of the results of the Iraq War is that that son of a b$tch Saddam took the long drop and his psycho sons ate bullets and the ba'ath party became extinct, the splitting of the American military into two wars was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
If the American's had bought their full military weight down in Afghanistan they probably wouldn't have the problems that they do now in terms of need to expand the mission.