Military Aviation > Defence in General

Losing the war in Afghanistan

<< < (2/2)

RecceJet:

--- Quote from: afterburnerlover on October 10, 2009, 10:03:44 PM ---I didn't read the rest of the replys bcuz of time,but i will shortly.I write stream of conscience,so bare with me.Oh and the spelling is horrible.Always been a bad speller.But i have to comment on the material in the topic.
1st;more people have died in Afghanistan under Obama's rule,than Bush's.Look at his Nobel Peace Prize-like the topic,he DOES care more about his popularity than winning a fcking WAR!!! Where people die,and are maimed for life.And will continue to be until 2012 no doubt.
It's just funny that he won it,and has achieved,or done NOTHING of any importance since he was sworn in.Nothing.He still excepted it.The Nobel Piece Prize has been dumbed down.People like Einstien,and Martin Luther King got it.Obama has never held a regular job,until he got into the Government.Even there,he has accomplished nothing-just a space hog in a chair.He wants to get rid of all nukes.G,great !@&king idea,when Iran now has thousands of centrifues(misspelled)spinning right now.
Iraq,and Iran need more troops.As many as possible.But civilians know nothing about how to win a war,or anything about combat for that matter,and they seem to pull Obama's strings-which is how the government should be ran;the PEOPLE decide.But when it comes to war,you do anything,and send anything to win the war quickly.Get it done quickly and efficiently,with  everything in our  arsenal we have.It saves time,and lifes.
You must ask the question-why are the 2 wars being fought this way?
It just reminds me of a "Vietnam"style of thinking,where we lifted the embargo on Russia's supply to Vietnam days before the Gulf of Tonka?-spelling.But people do nothing until it directly effects them.We know how to win these wars,trust me.They could end in 5 months-done,goals accomplished.Then pull back what we can,and "fortify" our boarders,letting no one end.In that time,we would strengthen our military to be ready for anything that comes our way.
Now i forgot what my main point was going to be...dangit! sorry

--- End quote ---

I fully agree where you say civilians no nothing about how to win a war. This one is seemingly being fought in the newsrooms where a story is sensationalised and aligned to whatever message the media wants the public to absorb. The public then decide what the best strategy is, but they don't have the complete picture!

Everyone talks about how the whole campaign is doomed, and they all cite various times in history and talk about learning from the past. It always strikes me as being so short-sighted! Many Western armed forces have reasonably good training facilities where their officers are taught military history and the strategies and tactics that caused one side's loss or the other's win. The feats of Alexander are all noted, and the experiences of the Soviet Russians in Afghanistan are published and studied the world over.

It's easy to sit in the comfort of a lounge and comment on how someone else is doing something wrong - especially when it's based off media reports you are taught to treat as truth. How objective is the media really? And these days it's even worse because our society now expects instant results with no casualties.

I think the Coalition Forces have done a bloody good job so far! They've adapted to asymmetric warfare and they are learning how to fight an aggressive organisation that hides amongst a population. Back in his day, Alexander would raze a city and massacre its inhabitants just to ensure the local population complies with his wishes. Even the Russians punished an entire inhabited region by bombing the irrigation systems and rendering the land unusable. Regardless of what the media claims, the tactics employed by the Coalition Forces today are more aligned to helping the population whilst weeding out the trouble makers. This is a complex and dangerous campaign that is being fought better each day. If a leading general on the battlefield then calls for more troops, that is what he should get! The campaign is hard enough without having to fight the media and misguided public calls to pull out.

shawn a:
"An attack that started in a nearby mosque"
Need I say more?

RecceJet:

--- Quote from: shawn a on November 15, 2009, 06:34:36 AM ---"An attack that started in a nearby mosque"
Need I say more?

--- End quote ---
And that's just it! The mosque in Afghanistan is a community focal point, similar to our shopping centres. The guys would go there and get fired up and go out looking for trouble. I guess the only thing different is lack of alcohol there, but they'll probably have had a few puffs of the local crop.

With all this media frenzy and political correctness, western forces are now bound to avoiding mosques and other such "protected" places. The insurgents know full well that we can't just go and grab them while they're there. They're using limitations that the western public imposes on our own troops.

Do you think they'd apply the same protected treatment to our medical or religious places? They don't even do it to their own! If some Afghan farmer decided he's happier with western forces helping rebuild his village, but the insurgents don't like that, would they really avoid the village mosque if they know he's there?

Again, considering the double standards imposed on our troops by ourselves (political correctness or whatever), I believe the guys doing it tough out there are doing a fine job!

shawn a:
Yes, no feces, they are doing  more than a fine job. I'd like to see all of our bases there set up to surround mosques and controlling access to them. I'd also like to see more supression of cell phones, and satellite phones until the situation is brought under control, and let's cut out the idiotic (but politically correct) "show of force passes" by our aircraft that allow the ****** ***** (expletive deleted) to determine what aircraft is supporting our people, and by simple use of binoculars, to determine how well it is armed. THIS IS POLITICAL CRETINISM, but that's America these days. What really burns my ass is that THEY can attack mosques of the "opposite sect", and somehow it is OK, but if we hit the very same mosque, it somehow becomes "ONE OF ISLAM'S HOLIEST SITES" yeah, right.
You don't want to know the rest of my opinions on this.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page