Yes, we have already lost the Global War in Afghanistan and Iraq

[SavannahMann]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

 

[gipper]

War is the health of the state....ALWAYS!!!

Here is a great Marine worth reading....
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler

Smedley Darlington Butler was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history

 

[beagle9]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You missed one important aspect as to why we fail in what we do... A people or military has to also check itself before going to occupy or kill another is my take. If a people or military are not worthy themselves of destroying another in which they claim are evil, and they also allow evilness to flourish amongst themselves, and/or have a safe haven amongst their ranks, then they will never be victorious in achieving their goals in punishing another for their wrongs, and especially upon a world stage or even at home. Why do you think that it is that the Romans could not destroy the Christians ??? Think about it. No we aren't engaging in barbarism or barbaric actions as is sometimes the choice of those for whom we fight, but if we aren't righteous in our cause or fight, and God is not at our side, then we are no better than those for whom we seek to destroy is my thoughts. We might be a little more clean at how we fight, but does that make us any better if our ideology or reasoning is rejected also ? Now our hopes under the new administration, is that we are going back to the days when we achieved victory in world war two, and are attempting to clean up our act all at the same time. Will we be successful ? Time will tell or God only knows. Happy Easter Sunday.

 

[SavannahMann]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You missed one important aspect as to why we fail in what we do... A people or military has to also check itself before going to occupy or kill another is my take. If a people or military are not worthy themselves of destroying another in which they claim are evil, and they also allow evilness to flourish amongst themselves, and/or have a safe haven amongst their ranks, then they will never be victorious in achieving their goals in punishing another for their wrongs, and especially upon a world stage or even at home. Why do you think that it is that the Romans could not destroy the Christians ??? Think about it. No we aren't engaging in barbarism or barbaric actions as is sometimes the choice of those for whom we fight, but if we aren't righteous in our cause or fight, and God is not at our side, then we are no better than those for whom we seek to destroy is my thoughts. We might be a little more clean at how we fight, but does that make us any better if our ideology or reasoning is rejected also ? Now our hopes under the new administration, is that we are going back to the days when we achieved victory in world war two, and are attempting to clean up our act all at the same time. Will we be successful ? Time will tell or God only knows. Happy Easter Sunday.

It is interesting that you mention this. I was watching a documentary on Afghanistan. I know there is certainly no shortage of those.

A embedded media team was with a unit for a long time, accompanying them on forays out of the base. One moment I am thinking of. The Company Commander was talking with the village elders. The Captain was asking for help in identifying and stopping the Taliban and Al Queda forces.

The Village Elder spoke and said his first concern is protecting his people. He needed to insure that his people were not shot while farming or while walking to the river.

The Captain waved that away and said that he told the Chief that all of that happened before and didn't have anything to do with who was there now.

You could see the Village Elders go apathetic on camera. They remained polite, and promised to talk more. But they were done. The Captain and his troops had no allies in the village because of who had come before and what they had done.

The same is true and happening in our own cities. I've heard people compare it to Pax Romana. The Peace of Rome. They talk about a time when you could walk the known world and be safe because of the words I am a roman citizen.

But realistically that Peace never existed. The Germans tried to recreate it as they invaded during World War One. If a German was shot at the village would be burned. The people would be killed. The Germans did not understand why the people did not just obey and submit. That was in Belgium which was far more peaceful than Afghanistan.

The Village Chief didn't care about the war or the taliban or any geopolitical bullshit. He cared about his village and his people. The Taliban was no threat to his village, the Americans were. The American Army had killed his people. The American Army had searched the homes of his people. The Americans were the ones upsetting his apple cart. Even if he didn't view the Army as the enemy of his village, they were not the friends of his village.

 

[beagle9]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You missed one important aspect as to why we fail in what we do... A people or military has to also check itself before going to occupy or kill another is my take. If a people or military are not worthy themselves of destroying another in which they claim are evil, and they also allow evilness to flourish amongst themselves, and/or have a safe haven amongst their ranks, then they will never be victorious in achieving their goals in punishing another for their wrongs, and especially upon a world stage or even at home. Why do you think that it is that the Romans could not destroy the Christians ??? Think about it. No we aren't engaging in barbarism or barbaric actions as is sometimes the choice of those for whom we fight, but if we aren't righteous in our cause or fight, and God is not at our side, then we are no better than those for whom we seek to destroy is my thoughts. We might be a little more clean at how we fight, but does that make us any better if our ideology or reasoning is rejected also ? Now our hopes under the new administration, is that we are going back to the days when we achieved victory in world war two, and are attempting to clean up our act all at the same time. Will we be successful ? Time will tell or God only knows. Happy Easter Sunday.

It is interesting that you mention this. I was watching a documentary on Afghanistan. I know there is certainly no shortage of those.

A embedded media team was with a unit for a long time, accompanying them on forays out of the base. One moment I am thinking of. The Company Commander was talking with the village elders. The Captain was asking for help in identifying and stopping the Taliban and Al Queda forces.

The Village Elder spoke and said his first concern is protecting his people. He needed to insure that his people were not shot while farming or while walking to the river.

The Captain waved that away and said that he told the Chief that all of that happened before and didn't have anything to do with who was there now.

You could see the Village Elders go apathetic on camera. They remained polite, and promised to talk more. But they were done. The Captain and his troops had no allies in the village because of who had come before and what they had done.

The same is true and happening in our own cities. I've heard people compare it to Pax Romana. The Peace of Rome. They talk about a time when you could walk the known world and be safe because of the words I am a roman citizen.

But realistically that Peace never existed. The Germans tried to recreate it as they invaded during World War One. If a German was shot at the village would be burned. The people would be killed. The Germans did not understand why the people did not just obey and submit. That was in Belgium which was far more peaceful than Afghanistan.

The Village Chief didn't care about the war or the taliban or any geopolitical bullshit. He cared about his village and his people. The Taliban was no threat to his village, the Americans were. The American Army had killed his people. The American Army had searched the homes of his people. The Americans were the ones upsetting his apple cart. Even if he didn't view the Army as the enemy of his village, they were not the friends of his village.

. Understood totally. I also worry when they would show our troops in theater on TV, and they would appear as these unsavory characters with all their tattoos that indicated an unrighteous character behind the uniform. Back during world war two, the most of our soldiers were being raised as Christians in their childhoods, and they carried that aspect with them in their leadership roles, and in their fighting roles. It was a recipe for success as was proven, and it brought about victory along with respect in the world. As our society has fallen over the years, it is very hard to gain back the respect and dignity in which we have since lost over those years. We have to check ourselves now or we will follow the same mistakes that other powerful and great societies have made in the past.

 

[yiostheoy]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You and the Nation have to have the will to "win" a war.

As John Melius said, you must kill them all and incinerate them, pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village.

The Romans had that kind of will. As did the ancient Greeks. The Russians and the Germans also had it once.

But the USA does not have the stomach for it.

Therefore Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria will go on and on forever.

And Islamic terrorist pinpricks in the West will go on forever too.

Might as well get your own CFP and an assault carbine of your own too to go with the pistol. And lots of ammo in case SHTF.

 

[yiostheoy]

War is the health of the state....ALWAYS!!!

Here is a great Marine worth reading....
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler

Smedley Darlington Butler was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history

Air Wing.

 

[Rustic]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

That area of the world is where empires go to die... Afghanistan was a mistake

 

[yiostheoy]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

That area of the world is where empires go to die... Afghanistan was a mistake

Pushing Russia out of A-stan was the mistake.

 

[SavannahMann]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You and the Nation have to have the will to "win" a war.

As John Melius said, you must kill them all and incinerate them, pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village.

The Romans had that kind of will. As did the ancient Greeks. The Russians and the Germans also had it once.

But the USA does not have the stomach for it.

Therefore Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria will go on and on forever.

And Islamic terrorist pinpricks in the West will go on forever too.

Might as well get your own CFP and an assault carbine of your own too to go with the pistol. And lots of ammo in case SHTF.

So the current operation is failing because we aren't brutal enough. That doesn't work. Seriously it might work for a time but it doesn't work for the long term. The Germans tried it in War One and two. All they did was rouse the population against them. French Resistance was just not happening after the French surrendered. Then the brutality kicked in and the French who were beaten and demoralized started to fight back. Ineffectual as it was in the beginning it continued.

The same thing happened in Belgium, Poland, and the Eastern European nations. The people there hated the Soviets, and the Germans pissed on potential allies. So the people fought back.

Go back further in history and the trend continues. Wipe out a village and the next villages go from neutral to hostile. Wipe them out and the next ones go hostile. If you are going to die anyway you might as well die fighting. A cornered rat will fight because it has no choice left.

This has played out in history time and time again. At first the brutal tactics seem to work, and then they rouse the population against you.

The Greeks defeated the Persians and were in turn defeated by the Romans. The Romans were defeated by the Barbarians of Gaul. The Barbarians of Gaul were defeated by the Franks. The Vikings defeated the British, and were defeated in turn.

Sun Tzu tells how to win a war.

 

[yiostheoy]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

 

[SavannahMann]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

During War II the Soviets and Germans traded atrocities like kids top trumps. The Nazi's would brutally slaughter Soviet soldiers. The Soviets hosed Germans down and made an ice road with the bodies of the German Soldiers supporting the ice. The Germans retaliated and then the Soviets did.

The Germans did not lose because they were not brutal enough. The Soviet Victory did not owe Brutality a major thanks. The Soviets were always going to win because they had greater numbers of everything. German Brutality only steeled the resolve of the Soviet Soldiers. Soviet Brutality meant the Germans would fight as hard as they could, the last few months of the war the Germans fought impossibly hard trying to hold out until the more civilized American and British forces could conquer them. This wasn't Hitler's idea, but it was what the line Soldiers and Civilians hoped for.

When the Nazi's invaded Easter Europe they were met with cheering crowds at first. The people detested the Brutality and abuses of the Soviets. When they discovered rather quickly that the Germans were just as bad the people started to resist. You had several different factions fighting the Germans. Pro Soviet, anti Soviet and Anti German.

In China during the same period we were supporting the Nationalist forces against the Japanese. The Nationalist forces would take food from the villages they passed through to feed the Army. This caused the predictable resentment. Mao's troops didn't do this, and were preferred because of it. The Villagers didn't give a flying fuck who was in charge. They wanted their rice bowl full in the evenings.

When Chang and the Nationalist forces were forced to flee to Taiwan, it was largely because their brutal treatment of their population resulted in a hostile population. Even if the villagers didn't take up arms against the Nationalist forces, they would not tell them where to find the Communists.

Over and over again in history this is played out. The West Germans did not resist occupation with any real vigor after the Nazi's surrendered because the Americans and British were more humane in their treatment of the conquered people. The Japanese could have attacked and overwhelmed the American occupation force but did not because while the Americans were arrogant and uncivilized by Japanese standards, they behaved better than the nightmare stories predicted.

The wall separating East and West Germany was because the German people were voting with their feet to leave the East. They wanted away from the Brutality.

The Hungarians never forgot. Or forgave the Soviets for the Brutality that marked the occupation and life in the Soviet sphere.

Go back another century and the people of Alsace and Lorraine never accepted the Brutal German occupation after the war of 1870. Four decades later they still dreamed of the day they would once again be French. This territory had been conquered by the French and the people rapidly accepted the idea that they were French because on the day the peace treaty was signed the French treated the locals as citizens.

Persia was a rather benign empire as other than taxes the people could worship their own gods and use their own language. This kept rebellions to the minimum and led to contentment of the population in general.

It would be debatable if there was a more brutal society than Sparta. Yet they faced Slave Revolts and had the Army mostly occupied with keeping the Slaves in line.

They could never march the entire Army off to war because if they did the Slaves would revolt and kill all the Spartans left behind.

You have a very narrow view of history. One that is rather flawed. One that is demonstrably incorrect. The Brutality works for a while. Then the people learn they have no reason not to fight. Then the Brutality is ineffective. You find the side with the brutal bastards are outnumbered and soon to perish.

 

[yiostheoy]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

During War II the Soviets and Germans traded atrocities like kids top trumps. The Nazi's would brutally slaughter Soviet soldiers. The Soviets hosed Germans down and made an ice road with the bodies of the German Soldiers supporting the ice. The Germans retaliated and then the Soviets did.

The Germans did not lose because they were not brutal enough. The Soviet Victory did not owe Brutality a major thanks. The Soviets were always going to win because they had greater numbers of everything. German Brutality only steeled the resolve of the Soviet Soldiers. Soviet Brutality meant the Germans would fight as hard as they could, the last few months of the war the Germans fought impossibly hard trying to hold out until the more civilized American and British forces could conquer them. This wasn't Hitler's idea, but it was what the line Soldiers and Civilians hoped for.

When the Nazi's invaded Easter Europe they were met with cheering crowds at first. The people detested the Brutality and abuses of the Soviets. When they discovered rather quickly that the Germans were just as bad the people started to resist. You had several different factions fighting the Germans. Pro Soviet, anti Soviet and Anti German.

In China during the same period we were supporting the Nationalist forces against the Japanese. The Nationalist forces would take food from the villages they passed through to feed the Army. This caused the predictable resentment. Mao's troops didn't do this, and were preferred because of it. The Villagers didn't give a flying fuck who was in charge. They wanted their rice bowl full in the evenings.

When Chang and the Nationalist forces were forced to flee to Taiwan, it was largely because their brutal treatment of their population resulted in a hostile population. Even if the villagers didn't take up arms against the Nationalist forces, they would not tell them where to find the Communists.

Over and over again in history this is played out. The West Germans did not resist occupation with any real vigor after the Nazi's surrendered because the Americans and British were more humane in their treatment of the conquered people. The Japanese could have attacked and overwhelmed the American occupation force but did not because while the Americans were arrogant and uncivilized by Japanese standards, they behaved better than the nightmare stories predicted.

The wall separating East and West Germany was because the German people were voting with their feet to leave the East. They wanted away from the Brutality.

The Hungarians never forgot. Or forgave the Soviets for the Brutality that marked the occupation and life in the Soviet sphere.

Go back another century and the people of Alsace and Lorraine never accepted the Brutal German occupation after the war of 1870. Four decades later they still dreamed of the day they would once again be French. This territory had been conquered by the French and the people rapidly accepted the idea that they were French because on the day the peace treaty was signed the French treated the locals as citizens.

Persia was a rather benign empire as other than taxes the people could worship their own gods and use their own language. This kept rebellions to the minimum and led to contentment of the population in general.

It would be debatable if there was a more brutal society than Sparta. Yet they faced Slave Revolts and had the Army mostly occupied with keeping the Slaves in line.

They could never march the entire Army off to war because if they did the Slaves would revolt and kill all the Spartans left behind.

You have a very narrow view of history. One that is rather flawed. One that is demonstrably incorrect. The Brutality works for a while. Then the people learn they have no reason not to fight. Then the Brutality is ineffective. You find the side with the brutal bastards are outnumbered and soon to perish.

You are confusing war crimes with ruthlessness.

War crimes accomplish nothing.

But ruthlessness is commonly now confused with war crimes.

if the US wants to "win" in the regime change games of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria then it/she/we need to start deporting and/or gassing peoples there -- just exactly what Assad is trying to do with the concurrence of his mentors Russia.

Same as Adolf.

Same as Stalin.

Same as Pol Pot.

You @SavannaM need to read more Machiavelli and Nietzsche to round out your pacifist luke warm readings.

 

[SavannahMann]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

During War II the Soviets and Germans traded atrocities like kids top trumps. The Nazi's would brutally slaughter Soviet soldiers. The Soviets hosed Germans down and made an ice road with the bodies of the German Soldiers supporting the ice. The Germans retaliated and then the Soviets did.

The Germans did not lose because they were not brutal enough. The Soviet Victory did not owe Brutality a major thanks. The Soviets were always going to win because they had greater numbers of everything. German Brutality only steeled the resolve of the Soviet Soldiers. Soviet Brutality meant the Germans would fight as hard as they could, the last few months of the war the Germans fought impossibly hard trying to hold out until the more civilized American and British forces could conquer them. This wasn't Hitler's idea, but it was what the line Soldiers and Civilians hoped for.

When the Nazi's invaded Easter Europe they were met with cheering crowds at first. The people detested the Brutality and abuses of the Soviets. When they discovered rather quickly that the Germans were just as bad the people started to resist. You had several different factions fighting the Germans. Pro Soviet, anti Soviet and Anti German.

In China during the same period we were supporting the Nationalist forces against the Japanese. The Nationalist forces would take food from the villages they passed through to feed the Army. This caused the predictable resentment. Mao's troops didn't do this, and were preferred because of it. The Villagers didn't give a flying fuck who was in charge. They wanted their rice bowl full in the evenings.

When Chang and the Nationalist forces were forced to flee to Taiwan, it was largely because their brutal treatment of their population resulted in a hostile population. Even if the villagers didn't take up arms against the Nationalist forces, they would not tell them where to find the Communists.

Over and over again in history this is played out. The West Germans did not resist occupation with any real vigor after the Nazi's surrendered because the Americans and British were more humane in their treatment of the conquered people. The Japanese could have attacked and overwhelmed the American occupation force but did not because while the Americans were arrogant and uncivilized by Japanese standards, they behaved better than the nightmare stories predicted.

The wall separating East and West Germany was because the German people were voting with their feet to leave the East. They wanted away from the Brutality.

The Hungarians never forgot. Or forgave the Soviets for the Brutality that marked the occupation and life in the Soviet sphere.

Go back another century and the people of Alsace and Lorraine never accepted the Brutal German occupation after the war of 1870. Four decades later they still dreamed of the day they would once again be French. This territory had been conquered by the French and the people rapidly accepted the idea that they were French because on the day the peace treaty was signed the French treated the locals as citizens.

Persia was a rather benign empire as other than taxes the people could worship their own gods and use their own language. This kept rebellions to the minimum and led to contentment of the population in general.

It would be debatable if there was a more brutal society than Sparta. Yet they faced Slave Revolts and had the Army mostly occupied with keeping the Slaves in line.

They could never march the entire Army off to war because if they did the Slaves would revolt and kill all the Spartans left behind.

You have a very narrow view of history. One that is rather flawed. One that is demonstrably incorrect. The Brutality works for a while. Then the people learn they have no reason not to fight. Then the Brutality is ineffective. You find the side with the brutal bastards are outnumbered and soon to perish.

You are confusing war crimes with ruthlessness.

War crimes accomplish nothing.

But ruthlessness is commonly now confused with war crimes.

if the US wants to "win" in the regime change games of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria then it/she/we need to start deporting and/or gassing peoples there -- just exactly what Assad is trying to do with the concurrence of his mentors Russia.

Same as Adolf.

Same as Stalin.

Same as Pol Pot.

You @SavannaM need to read more Machiavelli and Nietzsche to round out your pacifist luke warm readings.

When I made Sergeant in the Army I told my Dad I was a squad leader now. He told me to look over my shoulder now and then to make sure the troops were following.

I've read Machiavelli. I've read Nietzsche. The problem with their theories is this. Once people realize they've been lied to and manipulated they won't trust you again. This is why FDR had such a hard time getting people behind the war. The people had learned that the British had manipulated public opinion during the First World War.

This is why the world laughed at Baghdad Bob when he kept announcing that the Americans had been defeated at cities that were always closer to Baghdad.

You need to read The Guns of August. Amazon.com: The Guns of August: The Outbreak of World War I; Barbara W. Tuchman's Great War Series (Modern Library 100 Best Nonfiction Books) eBook: Barbara W. Tuchman, Robert K. Massie: Kindle Store

The Kaiser started the war by trying to manipulate the world.

The same author wrote the Zimmerman Telegram. The people were enraged when they learned how the Germans were lying and manipulating them.

The theories have been tried time and time again. They work for a time and then they don't. Look at the last election. Traditional Democratic voters rejected their party to vote Republican because the Machiavelli lies and manipulation made them angry. The Blue wall was shattered.

Once you learn you have been tricked you won't trust them for some time.

It isn't enough to read the theories. You have to see where it was tried and what happened.

You have to see what is the result. Once that is obvious then the theory is either disproven or proven.

Yours has been disproven. Conclusively and without any doubt. History did it. Not me.

 

[beagle9]

I read an interesting article that a friend of mine, a fellow veteran if you're curious, sent me.

Innovation | Marine Corps Association

The Marine Captain who wrote that discusses in detail his first hand experience, and the deeply held belief that we have already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Captain believes that the Marines did a fantastic job winning the tactical victories, but we were unable to achieve strategic victory. In other words, we won the battles and lost the war. He blames a lot of things, and to a certain extent I agree with his complaints.

However, I'd argue that the war was lost when we began. Strategic Victory is achieved when the enemy no longer wishes to fight. History tells of exact dates when the war ended, when the enemy surrendered. History websites have millions of photos of signing ceremonies where enemies agree to cease hostilities and face an uncertain peace. But this happens when one side finally admits that they have lost, and that is very hard for people to do in general. The boxing scene in Cool Hand Luke is a perfect example of stubborn defiance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We saw it in Vietnam. The British, and Russians and now us have seen it in Afghanistan.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to stop the Terrorists. No answer seems workable, and the idea that we can keep them occupied fighting us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria is laughable and demonstrably false. My main point in this thread is simple. Before you can have a strategic victory, you have to have a strategic goal that is achievable. Our strategic goals have shifted, and changed, and constantly morphed. Get bin Laden. OK, got him, war is not over. Destroy Al Quaeda. Um, the Romans couldn't destroy this fledgling religion known as Christianity, so destroying a movement that the people believe is the will of the divine is going to be tricky.

As I said, I don't know what the answer is, I just know we aren't working towards any answer right now. We aren't fighting to win, we are fighting not to lose. I'd be happy if someone offered a strategic vision that seemed to offer some chance of victory, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence of any such thoughtful plan being in the works.

You and the Nation have to have the will to "win" a war.

As John Melius said, you must kill them all and incinerate them, pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village.

The Romans had that kind of will. As did the ancient Greeks. The Russians and the Germans also had it once.

But the USA does not have the stomach for it.

Therefore Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria will go on and on forever.

And Islamic terrorist pinpricks in the West will go on forever too.

Might as well get your own CFP and an assault carbine of your own too to go with the pistol. And lots of ammo in case SHTF.

So the current operation is failing because we aren't brutal enough. That doesn't work. Seriously it might work for a time but it doesn't work for the long term. The Germans tried it in War One and two. All they did was rouse the population against them. French Resistance was just not happening after the French surrendered. Then the brutality kicked in and the French who were beaten and demoralized started to fight back. Ineffectual as it was in the beginning it continued.

The same thing happened in Belgium, Poland, and the Eastern European nations. The people there hated the Soviets, and the Germans pissed on potential allies. So the people fought back.

Go back further in history and the trend continues. Wipe out a village and the next villages go from neutral to hostile. Wipe them out and the next ones go hostile. If you are going to die anyway you might as well die fighting. A cornered rat will fight because it has no choice left.

This has played out in history time and time again. At first the brutal tactics seem to work, and then they rouse the population against you.

The Greeks defeated the Persians and were in turn defeated by the Romans. The Romans were defeated by the Barbarians of Gaul. The Barbarians of Gaul were defeated by the Franks. The Vikings defeated the British, and were defeated in turn.

Sun Tzu tells how to win a war.

. The reason none of the tactics work, is because you have absolutely got to be righteous in your cause, and in this righteousness you will prevail. At any point war becomes brutal because it is war, but the main thing is RIGHTEOUSNESS.

 

[beagle9]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

During War II the Soviets and Germans traded atrocities like kids top trumps. The Nazi's would brutally slaughter Soviet soldiers. The Soviets hosed Germans down and made an ice road with the bodies of the German Soldiers supporting the ice. The Germans retaliated and then the Soviets did.

The Germans did not lose because they were not brutal enough. The Soviet Victory did not owe Brutality a major thanks. The Soviets were always going to win because they had greater numbers of everything. German Brutality only steeled the resolve of the Soviet Soldiers. Soviet Brutality meant the Germans would fight as hard as they could, the last few months of the war the Germans fought impossibly hard trying to hold out until the more civilized American and British forces could conquer them. This wasn't Hitler's idea, but it was what the line Soldiers and Civilians hoped for.

When the Nazi's invaded Easter Europe they were met with cheering crowds at first. The people detested the Brutality and abuses of the Soviets. When they discovered rather quickly that the Germans were just as bad the people started to resist. You had several different factions fighting the Germans. Pro Soviet, anti Soviet and Anti German.

In China during the same period we were supporting the Nationalist forces against the Japanese. The Nationalist forces would take food from the villages they passed through to feed the Army. This caused the predictable resentment. Mao's troops didn't do this, and were preferred because of it. The Villagers didn't give a flying fuck who was in charge. They wanted their rice bowl full in the evenings.

When Chang and the Nationalist forces were forced to flee to Taiwan, it was largely because their brutal treatment of their population resulted in a hostile population. Even if the villagers didn't take up arms against the Nationalist forces, they would not tell them where to find the Communists.

Over and over again in history this is played out. The West Germans did not resist occupation with any real vigor after the Nazi's surrendered because the Americans and British were more humane in their treatment of the conquered people. The Japanese could have attacked and overwhelmed the American occupation force but did not because while the Americans were arrogant and uncivilized by Japanese standards, they behaved better than the nightmare stories predicted.

The wall separating East and West Germany was because the German people were voting with their feet to leave the East. They wanted away from the Brutality.

The Hungarians never forgot. Or forgave the Soviets for the Brutality that marked the occupation and life in the Soviet sphere.

Go back another century and the people of Alsace and Lorraine never accepted the Brutal German occupation after the war of 1870. Four decades later they still dreamed of the day they would once again be French. This territory had been conquered by the French and the people rapidly accepted the idea that they were French because on the day the peace treaty was signed the French treated the locals as citizens.

Persia was a rather benign empire as other than taxes the people could worship their own gods and use their own language. This kept rebellions to the minimum and led to contentment of the population in general.

It would be debatable if there was a more brutal society than Sparta. Yet they faced Slave Revolts and had the Army mostly occupied with keeping the Slaves in line.

They could never march the entire Army off to war because if they did the Slaves would revolt and kill all the Spartans left behind.

You have a very narrow view of history. One that is rather flawed. One that is demonstrably incorrect. The Brutality works for a while. Then the people learn they have no reason not to fight. Then the Brutality is ineffective. You find the side with the brutal bastards are outnumbered and soon to perish.

. Brutal fighting to match brutal fighting or actions on the battlefield is one thing, but it's when the brutality becomes vengeful once the other side has been defeated, disarmed, and taken captive. This is when the world, villages, town's people, and militaries have their ears and eyes wide open. If they hear that people are being abused after the individual battles are over, then you get the charge up of people to turn on the ones who may have been seen as righteous at first, but then are known to be brutal killers without a conscious in the end.

 

[Sunni Man]

Very little difference between the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars, except fighting in the jungle vers fighting in the desert.

It just doesn't work trying to bomb people back into the stone age, when they are already living in the stone age. .....

 

[SavannahMann]

We are not brutal enough.

This is correct.

Medina and Calley were brutal enough but you saw what happened to them.

During War II the Soviets and Germans traded atrocities like kids top trumps. The Nazi's would brutally slaughter Soviet soldiers. The Soviets hosed Germans down and made an ice road with the bodies of the German Soldiers supporting the ice. The Germans retaliated and then the Soviets did.

The Germans did not lose because they were not brutal enough. The Soviet Victory did not owe Brutality a major thanks. The Soviets were always going to win because they had greater numbers of everything. German Brutality only steeled the resolve of the Soviet Soldiers. Soviet Brutality meant the Germans would fight as hard as they could, the last few months of the war the Germans fought impossibly hard trying to hold out until the more civilized American and British forces could conquer them. This wasn't Hitler's idea, but it was what the line Soldiers and Civilians hoped for.

When the Nazi's invaded Easter Europe they were met with cheering crowds at first. The people detested the Brutality and abuses of the Soviets. When they discovered rather quickly that the Germans were just as bad the people started to resist. You had several different factions fighting the Germans. Pro Soviet, anti Soviet and Anti German.

In China during the same period we were supporting the Nationalist forces against the Japanese. The Nationalist forces would take food from the villages they passed through to feed the Army. This caused the predictable resentment. Mao's troops didn't do this, and were preferred because of it. The Villagers didn't give a flying fuck who was in charge. They wanted their rice bowl full in the evenings.

When Chang and the Nationalist forces were forced to flee to Taiwan, it was largely because their brutal treatment of their population resulted in a hostile population. Even if the villagers didn't take up arms against the Nationalist forces, they would not tell them where to find the Communists.

Over and over again in history this is played out. The West Germans did not resist occupation with any real vigor after the Nazi's surrendered because the Americans and British were more humane in their treatment of the conquered people. The Japanese could have attacked and overwhelmed the American occupation force but did not because while the Americans were arrogant and uncivilized by Japanese standards, they behaved better than the nightmare stories predicted.

The wall separating East and West Germany was because the German people were voting with their feet to leave the East. They wanted away from the Brutality.

The Hungarians never forgot. Or forgave the Soviets for the Brutality that marked the occupation and life in the Soviet sphere.

Go back another century and the people of Alsace and Lorraine never accepted the Brutal German occupation after the war of 1870. Four decades later they still dreamed of the day they would once again be French. This territory had been conquered by the French and the people rapidly accepted the idea that they were French because on the day the peace treaty was signed the French treated the locals as citizens.

Persia was a rather benign empire as other than taxes the people could worship their own gods and use their own language. This kept rebellions to the minimum and led to contentment of the population in general.

It would be debatable if there was a more brutal society than Sparta. Yet they faced Slave Revolts and had the Army mostly occupied with keeping the Slaves in line.

They could never march the entire Army off to war because if they did the Slaves would revolt and kill all the Spartans left behind.

You have a very narrow view of history. One that is rather flawed. One that is demonstrably incorrect. The Brutality works for a while. Then the people learn they have no reason not to fight. Then the Brutality is ineffective. You find the side with the brutal bastards are outnumbered and soon to perish.

. Brutal fighting to match brutal fighting or actions on the battlefield is one thing, but it's when the brutality becomes vengeful once the other side has been defeated, disarmed, and taken captive. This is when the world, villages, town's people, and militaries have their ears and eyes wide open. If they hear that people are being abused after the individual battles are over, then you get the charge up of people to turn on the ones who may have been seen as righteous at first, but then are known to be brutal killers without a conscious in the end.

Not really. Trading Brutality means people fight harder. Let's say we are on opposite sides of the war. You know that if you surrender I will feed you and provide you shelter. I will provide you with the things you need to live including medical care for your troops. You know death and dismemberment await you if you don't surrender.

Thousands of Iraqi Soldiers Surrender

Because we acted honorably towards prisoners in Desert Storm the survivors of that war were able to tell their comrades we would act honorably in the future. That unit was one that was conquered without firing a shot or losing one friendly troop. No private died to defeat that entire division. No soldier was sent home wounded or maimed from hard fighting.

Fight hard yes. Fight with honor too. Accept a surrender and treat prisoners well. Provide food and medical care. Provide comfort items like cigarettes. It is cheaper to do that than drop dozens of bombs and fire thousands of rounds. If you know your enemy will treat you better than your own side does the question of why you are fighting comes to mind.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

ISIS seems to be unifying Islamic multiple nations into a more belligerent, and powerful power.

But, I suppose that Assad is the bigger threat.