06-23-2010, 01:48 PM
|
#21
|
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
I guess, but I am coming from the perspective that it's impossible to accomplish anything in Afghanistan.  |
Well me too to a certain degree. We've even had the discussion before.
But back in the day Iraq was looking a lot like Afghanistan is right now.
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 01:50 PM
|
#22
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sydney, NSfW
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
My guess is that McChrystal is unsatisfied with Obama's support for the war and wants out. If he just resigned he would look like he was retreating while his soliders were under fire. Also if he called Obama out directly every military man in the States would condemn his conduct.
By saying some borderline stuff to a reporter he might just hope that Obama replaces him with very little tarnish to his record. If Afganistan and Obama both end badly this might even help him later in political life.
|
He sacrificed his position to call attention to the issue, to get more support for his troops from Obama. Good on him.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:07 PM
|
#23
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Well me too to a certain degree. We've even had the discussion before.
But back in the day Iraq was looking a lot like Afghanistan is right now.
Just saying.
|
True, but it turns out there is only one Afghanistan. I would like to see the Chinese take a shot at it next. 
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to VladtheImpaler For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:13 PM
|
#24
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
I guess, but I am coming from the perspective that it's impossible to accomplish anything in Afghanistan. |
With the current situation it is exceedingly tough to get anything done. But I doubt that its impossible to get things done there.
The biggest problem is the flow of Taliban fighters through the border with Pakistan and ISI's involvement in supporting the Taliban fighter.
Improved recon from the air would be helpful as well as most deaths aren't being caused by direct action, but by indirect action.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:13 PM
|
#25
|
|
Atomic Nerd
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary
|
It's not 1950 all over again. McArthur was coming out and saying outright that the President sucked in 1950. Of course he had to be relieved.
At least McCrystal isn't getting fired because he banged his subordinate ala General Quebecois.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:19 PM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
With the current situation it is exceedingly tough to get anything done. But I doubt that its impossible to get things done there.
The biggest problem is the flow of Taliban fighters through the border with Pakistan and ISI's involvement in supporting the Taliban fighter.
Improved recon from the air would be helpful as well as most deaths aren't being caused by direct action, but by indirect action.
|
When you are dealing with well-armed tribes of savages who not only hate you but each other, how many troops would you actually need to subdue them and impose a stable order? And how much time would you need? Not being a dick - just wondering what the resources required are.
Also, doesn't it depend on your goal? If you are trying to impose a "western democracy", I don't think you can, but if your goal is merely stability under an Afghan version of Saddam, that might be doable...
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:20 PM
|
#27
|
|
Had an idea!
|
You have to convince them that they need to start exporting those trillion dollars worth of natural resources not called oil that they're sitting on....
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:28 PM
|
#28
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
When you are dealing with well-armed tribes of savages who not only hate you but each other, how many troops would you actually need to subdue them and impose a stable order? And how much time would you need? Not being a dick - just wondering what the resources required are.
Also, doesn't it depend on your goal? If you are trying to impose a "western democracy", I don't think you can, but if your goal is merely stability under an Afghan version of Saddam, that might be doable...
|
And thats the problem.
But the idea of adding more troops or surging like they're working to now could work if they follow the Canadian model of housing troops in the villages with the villagers instead of having them patrol from major bases.
First and foremost this would help stem the intimidation tactics of the taliban who operate at night and often go to villages after the Western forces leave and intimidate and recruit.
I talked to a friend of mine who has done multiples in Afghanistan and he basically stated that there's not an overwhelming hatred of the Western troops by average Joe Afghanistan, he stated that conversly there is an overwhelming hatred of the Taliban, but there is also an overwhelming intimidation by the Taliban because Joe Afghanistan believes that at the end of the day when the Western powers leave the Taliban will enact revenge.
I thiink that putting a democratic system in place is probably a good call. But I think the more important calling is modernization of infastructure. If you can help the Afghanistan people with food, water, and most importantly education, then the igorance of the Taliban will be their undoing. If the we can get a generation of really educated and literal kids through school, they will be the force that eventually makes the Taliban fade.
Going back to militarily a surge is good only if they secure their gains. and start pushing a stable precence into the wild lands.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:29 PM
|
#29
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
how many troops would you actually need to subdue them and impose a stable order?
|
The more troops you put there, the more you'll end up needing.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:47 PM
|
#30
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.
The more troops you put there, the more you'll end up needing.
|
That's why I'd like to see the Chinese and their unlimited manpower give it a try.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:52 PM
|
#31
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
That's why I'd like to see the Chinese and their unlimited manpower give it a try. |
There would be nothing left of Afghanistan.
The Chinese have a different idea of how things would be done.
If they were hit with an IED the nearest village would be burned off of the map.
They'd vigorously interrogate suspected taliban members by slowly running them over with a tank. They'd seize and exploit the mineral resources and invest non of it back in Afghanistan.
They'd close the border to Pakistan with landmines.
They'd probably murder half of the government and turn the Afghan police into newly reformed KGB.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 02:57 PM
|
#32
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
There would be nothing left of Afghanistan.
The Chinese have a different idea of how things would be done.
If they were hit with an IED the nearest village would be burned off of the map.
They'd vigorously interrogate suspected taliban members by slowly running them over with a tank. They'd seize and exploit the mineral resources and invest non of it back in Afghanistan.
They'd close the border to Pakistan with landmines.
They'd probably murder half of the government and turn the Afghan police into newly reformed KGB.
|
Doesn't that pretty much summarize my people's approach? And it didn't end well....
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 03:10 PM
|
#33
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
Doesn't that pretty much summarize my people's approach? And it didn't end well.... |
Not really, the Soviets failed more because indecision and an inflexibility and not enough troops to secure areas properly.
They also didn't come up with the technology to counter the funding and weapons sent in by the Americans.
The Chinese are far more ruthless and pragmatic then the Soviets could have ever hoped to be.
the Soviets concept of retaliation in the war was about intimidation.
The Chinese concept of retaliation is built around removing the treat and intimidation is a bonus.
The Soviets were also trying to support the government that they had put in charge.
The Chinese wouldn't care about the government.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 03:56 PM
|
#35
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The Chinese concept of retaliation is built around removing the treat and intimidation is a bonus.
|
mmmmm..... chocolate....
(haha j/k... couldn't resist!)
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 04:02 PM
|
#36
|
|
Atomic Nerd
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary
|
I was that I was as cold, calculating, ruthless, efficient, successful, and capable as my people are stereotyped to be.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2010, 04:03 PM
|
#37
|
|
Atomic Nerd
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.
mmmmm..... chocolate....
(haha j/k... couldn't resist!)
|
So the Chinese can actually take the caramel out of the caramilk bar? Man, that is intimidation!
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2010, 04:41 PM
|
#38
|
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...t-source-says/
That only took a week. About freakin' time too.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51 PM.
|
|
