Uninformed chatter on the wars in the Sandbox....

[Aries]

I dunno what the breakfast was made up of....Ramadan and all so they early in the morning and it was almost ccompletely digested by then.

I dunno what comments they made after cause they spoke mostly with the interpreter and i had to show buddy where to get a hose to clean the puke.

He was angry cause they don't eat all day and he now had nothing in his belly.

But hey! looks like deserter left....'bout time!

 

[dglad]

Dglad wrote: "The truly glaring flaw in Deserter's argument is conflating Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are two different operations, with two different realities.  One could argue at length about the wisdom of the US engaging itself in Iraq, and the effect that has had on the Afghanistan operation.  But to automatically equate these two theatres in terms of, for example, international law, is completely fallacious.  To do so simply because they are geographically close and predmoninantly Islamic is an excellent example of the very type of ethno-centrism he decries."

They are not dissimilar.  Both are countries where a large minority oppose both the US and US-installed governments.  Both are countries where the insurgents want independence and not a centrally-controlled state.  Both are countries where large parts of the general population sympathize with the insurgents and are putting pressure on their governments to soften Western military tactics or even withdraw.  Both are countries where factions are splitting up along tribal or ethnic lines and the insurgency is growing. And I'm only assuming that most people on this board are aware that both the government of Iraq and Afghanistan have BOTH critized the US publicly recently for their military transgressions.

As has been pointed out, these similarities are superficial.  It's facile and, frankly, insulting to those who live there to lump together two countries which have rich, diverse and complex cultures and histories on the basis of an insurgency. 

This article is from Oct. 22nd (Pakistan Tribune): KABUL: President Hamid Karzai has regretted killing of 19 civilians and wounding of 11 others by NATO forces in the southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. According to statement, the President said that killing civilians was intolerable for the Afghan government after frequent demands from the foreign troops to stop inflicting civil casualties during their operations... The NATO forces bombed a residential house in Greshk district of the southern Helmand province early Wednesday, killing 11 villagers. They also killed nine civilians in bombing of a house in Zhirai district of the neighbouring Kandahar province in a similar air strike. "

I assume you're attempting to show that NATO has made some unpleasant mistakes in Afghanistan.  That's unfortunately true, and unfortunately something that happens when lethal force is applied by all-too imperfect human beings.  I don't think you'll find any thoughtful members of this board arguing that events like this one aren't deeply regretful, don't harm NATO's cause, or that the ultimate answer to stabilizing Afghanistan to the point at which the NATO forces can quite happily withdraw is a strictly military one.  It may have escaped your notice, but the military efforts in SE Afghanistan are designed to create a stable and secure environment, in which reconstruction by the international community of the basic pillars of civil society--water treatment and distribution, waste management, emergency services, schools, hospitals, etc.--can be accomplished.  Given the Taliban's track record in governance, this isn't something that would have been likely to happen under their rule.  Of course, I supposed we could have waited until the Afghan people came to their senses and just voted the Taliban out of office, and installed a progressive, reform-minded government....

With regards to WP, this chemical was used in Iraq against insurgents and as well by Israel against Lebanon.  Why should Canadians not just assume that WP is being used? We are told day after day by Hillier et all that we're at war with thousands of monsters, so WP would make sense.  It's not like the military will come forward willingly with this information. We already know that Canadian soldiers in the field have access to white phosporus and have used it in the field.  In this article WP is being used at least to destroy property. WP is also part of ammunitions allocation in the artillery unit of the military is it not?(http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/12/canada.troops.marijuana.reut/index.html)

Not entirely sure where this came from.  If you're trying to suggest that an atrocity or war-crime has been committed, then you'll need to provide better information than this, to support such a serious claim.  A CNN article in which Canadians are reported as attempting to burn marijuana plants with WP is a far cry from a "war crime".  They also used diesel fuel, according to the article, but you don't decry its possible use as an agent of terror or destruction.  Or perhaps you have some other agenda point you're trying to make here.  I'm just not sure.

Military secrecy news article links ---> (See Hamilton Spectator http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838797&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062581)  (Victoria Times-Colonist  http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/canada/story.html?id=407ba3d3-0be4-4148-9b15-684af47a5931 and Ottawa Citizen link (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=645db0d6-c3dd-465c-9588-59bdfb9ca40a&k=8050

The first one is an op-ed piece that focuses on the refusal of the CF to release details of the Canadian Rules of Engagement.  Much as the author would like to make this into a sinister issue, the fact is that ROEs are carefully guarded, for the reason given in the article--to prevent the enemy from exploiting whatever limitations they may contain.  If Canadian ROEs say that our soldiers can't use lethal force against left-handed pink baboons, and we publicize that fact, then the enemy could, potentially, make use of that limitation in some detrimental way.  The second article deals with keeping additional secrets, like the number of Canadian wounded.  Okay...arguable, I suppose, regarding how much propaganda value such may provide to the enemy.  What these two articles do prove is that the military likes to keep secrets.  That has something to do, perhaps, with facing an enemy who's very anxious to kill you dead.  Not surprisingly, such secrecy is a time-honoured military tradition; the Romans didn't broadcast their strategic planning for the Punic Wars, either.

The third article deals with a lack of transparency in spending and procurement, and, okay, that is worrisome....as a tax-payer, I like to know that my tax dollars aren't being wasted.  But that's not really germane to Afghanistan and is, in fact, a systemic problem with our entire federal government (try getting detailed spending figures out of Public Works Canada in a timely way). 

 

[Trinity]

But hey! looks like deserter left....'bout time!

ummm.. C & P will do that too you...
for at least 7 days 

He'll be back... they always return.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

He'll be back... they always return.

I'll avoid making the all to easy pun about returning.....

okay I wont

So Trinity,  you think there will be a second coming?

 

[George Wallace]

Well guys.......let's just say (s)he has been/likely has been back.  As you all know one does not always have to log-in as themselves to read the site.  We usually have twice as many guests reading the posts, as members.

 

[Legless_Marine]

What are your thoughts? [ On the invasion of Afghanistan from a military standpoint ]

I can't really see how the stated goals are even remotely possible.   So much Afghanistan-related dialogue is centered on the "Should", with insufficient focus on the "Can", or the "How" - But there just doesn't seem to be enough discussion or evaluation of the nuts-and-bolts of this mission in practical terms.   The strategy of the ISAF seems facile and oversimplistic, reminiscent of the underpants gnomes' incomplete business plan:

1.   Send more troops and money to Afghanistan.
2.   ?
3.   Rebuild and make peace.

Afghanistan is a big place, full of a lot of tested and hardened folk who have survived multiple wars, if not participated in them directly.    They're split up into hundreds of regional tribes that hate foreigners as much as they hate each other.   The Insurgents are on their home turf, being resupplied, and are learning, and like any insurgency, won't be removed without destroying the host population.   Afghanistan is decentralized, and spheres of control are many and limited in scope - Controlling a city means only that, and doesn't ensure any control of the surrounding region.   It's inconcievable that a patchwork force of ~30,000 internationals from dozens of different nations are going to tame a nation of 30,000,000 people with a traditional hatred for foreigners, and who have spent more time torturing the neighboring tribe's daughters than they have watching TV.

The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan with far more men than NATO has there now.   Like us, they deceived themselves into thinking an invitation from a single faction would somehow be honored by all of the others.    Before they finally figured out they were unwelcome, 15,000 soldiers had come home in body bags, and another 400,000 thousand on stretchers.     What didn't make it home is hundreds of tons of hardware, including 100+ rotting T-62s north of Kabul.    I'm sure our handful of Leopards will look spendid beside them - Sort of like the aftermath of a 1980s-era war re-enactment.

Afghanistan, next to Reagonomics and the lack of Levi's 501s, was one of the biggest nails in the coffin of the Russian empire.

Pakistan's Musharref tried to tame his side of the Pasto belt with 70,000 men.   Unlike the ISAF's patchwork of cake-eating foreigners, his soldiers are from the 'hood, and are familiar with the religion, culture, and language(s).    Nonetheless, he soon figured it was pragmatic to recall his men and leave well enough alone.


Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed.   

There is no possibility of victory in Afghanistan - Unless the definition of victory is drastically redefined.

 

[boondocksaint]

Im suprised you didnt bring up a comparison to Vietnam, it's as relevant as the Soviet arguement.

We are not the Soviets, not there for any of the same reasons. Nor are our combat  capabilities comparable. Dont use numbers in an attempt to draw parallels. Our vehicles, troops, kit and tactics are far more capable then mere numbers indicate.

When Germany and Japan were defeated, literally bombed into the middle ages, re-construction took time. Afganistan is starting from the stone ages, re-construction will take time. In our seven months there we saw drastic changes in many areas. Positive changes.

There is no other option except to win.

 

[paracowboy]

They're split up into hundreds of regional tribes that hate foreigners as much as they hate each other.  

they also work with foreigners, express gratitude to foreigners, and welcome foreigners. Depends entirely on the behaviour of the foreigner in question. 

The Insurgents are on their home turf, being resupplied, and are learning, and like any insurgency, won't be removed without destroying the host population.

incorrect. One does not have to 'destroy' the host population. In fact, that is entirely contrary to proper strategic/tactical thinking. One doesn't remove the bad fish by draining the ocean. One does it by swimming amongst them and convincing the good fishies, and apathetic fishies, that the bad fishies gotta go. "Destroy" the host population. What are you? Gestapo? We are there to HELP the host population!

Afghanistan is decentralized, and spheres of control are many and limited in scope - Controlling a city means only that, and doesn't ensure any control of the surrounding region.

  so we get out and swim. As we're doing.

It's inconcievable that a patchwork force of ~30,000 internationals from dozens of different nations are going to tame a nation of 30,000,000 people with a traditional hatred for foreigners, and who have spent more time torturing the neighboring tribe's daughters than they have watching TV.

we're not there to 'tame' anyone. Enough with the Attila School of Warfare, dude. Geez! That ain't the way we play.

The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan with far more men than NATO has there now.

by following the Guidelines you've laid out above. Homey don't play dat. (3 points to anyone who remembers where that's from.)

Like us, they deceived themselves into thinking an invitation from a single faction would somehow be honored by all of the others.

  ahhh, no. They ENGINEERED an "invitation" by placing their own people into power, removed those people, then murdered the guys they replaced the first lot with. Hardly an "invitation".

Before they finally figured out they were unwelcome, 15,000 soldiers had come home in body bags, and another 400,000 thousand on stretchers.

poorly trained, under-equipped, un-motivated conscripts fighting for a cause they didn't believe in. Yeah, that's a fair analogy. :   

What didn't make it home is hundreds of tons of hardware, including 100+ rotting T-62s north of Kabul. I'm sure our handful of Leopards will look spendid beside them - Sort of like the aftermath of a 1980s-era war re-enactment.

and Timmie Taliban is employing any of that equipment, how? I haven't heard of any T-62 rolling into a FOB lately. Have I missed something?   

Afghanistan, next to Reagonomics and the lack of Levi's 501s, was one of the biggest nails in the coffin of the Russian empire.

we're not building an empire. We're assisting the Afghan people get their shit together.

Pakistan's Musharref tried to tame his side of the Pasto belt with 70,000 men.

no, he didn't. He sent some guys just short of actually moving into the 'disputed' territories.

Unlike the ISAF's patchwork of cake-eating foreigners, his soldiers are from the 'hood, and are familiar with the religion, culture, and language(s).    Nonetheless, he soon figured it was pragmatic to recall his men and leave well enough alone.

His own Int agencies are a virtual rogue element, and specific military commanders are sympathetic to the Taliban. He can't trust them to wage war against AQ or Timmie, so he doesn't. Look at the nation he inherited from Zia: Islamic fundamentalist. And you expect him to be able to turn that around in under a decade?

Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed. 

we are not invaders. That is the difference. 

There is no possibility of victory in Afghanistan - Unless the definition of victory is drastically redefined.

I dunno what your definition of 'victory' is, but ours is a safe and secure environment wherein the Afghan people can rebuild their nation. That's on-going right now, and getting better every day.

 

[patrick666]

Homey the Clown from In Living Colour, the preceded phrase to hitting one of the kids over the head.

3 points for me! Woo!

Anyways, back on track!

 

[McG]

The strategy of the ISAF seems facile and oversimplistic, reminiscent of the underpants gnomes' incomplete business plan:

1.  Send more troops and money to Afghanistan.
2.  ?
3.  Rebuild and make peace.

By that question mark and your over simplification, I see you have not really tried to understand the international strategy in Afghanistan, and you have been bought by Jack Layton's fear campaign.  Some of the idea has been adressed here:

[quote author=The Ruxted Group]Mr Layton continually insists that the mission is “unbalanced” but he does not suggest what a balanced mission would look like. Mr Layton continues to fearmonger with tales of “no exit strategy,” but that exit strategy has long been articulated. Part of the rebuilding is capacity building. We are building the capacity of the democratically elected Afghan government to fight its own battles and maintain its own security. Once that capacity is built then Afghanistan will have self-sustaining stability, and we can begin our exit. However, until that capacity is built we need to carry a heavy load in the fight.[/quote]

It is also important to note that stability/security operations and reconstruction operations are not independant and consecutive.  They are parallel and mutually supporting lines of operation.  ISAF knows this; our military knows this; our operations are being conducted with this in mind.

If you feel that you can see so much wrong in the mission, why is it that you have only critisism and not recomendations? 

 

[Koenigsegg]

Nato is arrogant and delusional think it's half-hearted efforts will succeed where so many better qualified invaders have failed.

Many better qualified invaders?  We have all their experiences to learn off, and we are doing so.
the Russians, were not very well "qualified" invaders, unless by "qualified" you mean impatient, brutal, poorly trained and sadly motivated.
And the British, well, in their first war they looked down upon the Afghans, and expected them to be pushovers...
I will stop there.

We, Have done none of this today, and we are not invaders...

We have NOT done the following:

entered forcefully as an enemy
entered as if to take possession
entered with the intent to affect injuriously or destructively, as disease

Oh, and it is NATO, not Nato..it is an acronym.  you did get ISAF right though.

 

[Legless_Marine]

Just throwing this out there but perhaps if the government had some sort of propaganda
campaign going on, sort of like what you see from WWII, it could help raise public support.

An excellent idea, warspite.   I've been thinking along much the same lines.  It is always
possible to bring the people to do the bidding of the leaders.  All we need to do is
tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger.

Modern humanitarian missions are too complex for the average person to grasp, and
they may need help understanding some of the complexities. Towards this end, I've
developed the following three-pronged strategy:

1)   Create fear by emphasising otherwise hypothetical, distant, or improbable threats.
2)   Deliberately conflate American interests with Canadian interests.
3)   Repetition via a variety of media outlets.

In line with these three core concepts, I submit that such a program would could be implemented
by the promulgation, repetition, and reinforcement of the specific ideas:

1)   Remind Canadians that "they" attacked "us", without provocation, on 9/11.     Be vague
about the "them" and the "us", and soon you'll have Canadians believing that the CN tower was
attacked by Hamas.   Show lots of teary widows on TV.

2)   Emphasize that "they" are conspiring to attack "us", and must be attacked "there"
first.   When they fight back, emphasize it as proof of their evil intent all along.   

3)   Demonize the opposition:   Accuse anyone who doesn't support total war of being a slave
to any one of several extreme ideologies:    Hezbollah/Taliban/Hamas/Islam/NDP.   Accuse
them of being un-Canadian, or cowards.

4)   Invoke Canadian freedoms as being dependant upon success overseas.    If we don't deal
with the enemy there, they'll end up in Canada where they will try to pass laws allowing
wiretapping, unlawful detention, and warrantless search.

5)   Disseminate and repeat meaningless, but pleasant sounding phrases such as "Support the
troops", "fight for freedom", "Stay the course", and "Victory is the only option".     There
is a comfort in clarity and decisiveness.   The phrases will become both shibboleth and mantra.

6)   Confuse cause and effect in order to demonize the enemy.   Remind people that if it
wasn't for the enemy there fighting us, we wouldn't have to be there fighting him.   We need
to send our soldiers there to protect our soldiers from the suicide bombers that are blowing
them up.
   
7)   Minimize and justify civilian casualties caused by us, and condemn them when done
by the enemy.    If we kill civilians, it was because the enemy was using them to hide.   If
they kill civilians, discuss the enemy's callous disregard for life.  And show lots of baby pictures.


I'm still working on this program, and am open to any suggestions.  Ultimately, once it's
mature, I'd like to sell it it to Canwest-Global, where it can be disseminated to Canadians via
70% of print and televised media.


[ This message may or may not contain spelling errors, peanuts, and/or shamelessly
  plagiarized quotes from dead war criminals. ]

 

[paracowboy]

wow, aren't you clever, I can only juuuuuust make out the smarmy, pseudo-intellectual, smugness. :

 

[paracowboy]

by the way, Marine, what MEU were you in?

 

[the 48th regulator]

tick tock,

And very interesting moniker as well....

Where did you lose them?

dileas

tess

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

There's another version of his list that perhaps "Legless_Marine" should consider:

1.  Demonize the military.  Characterize military personnel as unthinking automatons, duped into serving the imperialist war machine to escape poverty or to indulge in war fantasies.

2.  Simplify the situation.  Describe the effort in Afghanistan as "George Bush's war" or as "blood for oil".  Play upon the public's suspicions of the current American administration to serve political ends.

3.  Alter facts to suit a perceived reality.  Claim that there's an American pipeline planned for Afghanistan.  Claim that there was a US "invasion" in 2002.  Claim that the Canadian mission in the country "changed" in 2005.  Ignore UN involvement in Afghanistan and UN pronouncements on the Canadian mission there.  Create a false link between current Canadian operations in Kandahar Province and Iraq.  Claim that Canada is guilty of war crimes, despite Red Cross pronouncements to the contrary.

4.  Present politically motivated "experts" to support your position.  Quote the Senlis Council, Polaris Institute and other organizations that criticize Canadian policy in Afghanistan while ignoring the plethora of real experts, many from the international community that support that policy.

5.  Cynically play upon public emotions created by casualty repatriations to undermine support for the mission by claiming withdrawal from Afghanistan somehow "supports the troops".

6.  Cravenly link support for the mission to support for the Republican party, neo-conservatism and, especially, George Bush.

7.  Ignore fundamentalist Islamic positions on women, gay rights, property rights, treatment of animals, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and use of violence in an effort to portray fundamentalists as "oppressed" and as the victim.

8.  Ignore the link between left-wing opposition to Canada's presence in Afghanistan and far right neo-Nazi positions on the same topic.

9.  Disseminate and repeat meaningless phrases such as "No Blood for Oil", "Canada out of Afghanistan", "Bush is a war criminal", and "Bring the troops home now".  There is a comfort in clarity and decisiveness.  The phrases will become both shibboleth and mantra.

Happily, I don't have to sell this to 70% of the mainstream media.  They're already using it...  :

 

[Slim]

1)  Create fear by emphasising otherwise hypothetical, distant, or improbable threats.
2)  Deliberately conflate American interests with Canadian interests.
3)  Repetition via a variety of media outlets.

Sunshine

You're on thin ice with garbage like that. Consider yourself warned.

Slim
STAFF

 

[Trinity]

You're on thin ice with garbage like that. Consider yourself warned.

ME thinks.. he doesn't care.  :

 

[McG]

Legless_Marine,
I believe you are here only as a troll.  You post lengthy inflammatory posts and have so far made no effort to respond to any counter arguments made against you (here or against the posts you still have in the source thread).  Please note the site guidelines:

You will not troll the boards

Consider this your warning.  Post intelligent arguments or go away.  We have no time for your provocative logical fallacies & seditious witticisms.

 

[boondocksaint]

Noone used tripe yet?