PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Johnh on January 22, 2016, 11:43:29 AM
-
It only makes sense that if you are going to wage war, your warriors should be allowed to kill the enemy, so in that regard, the Obama administration did move a little bit in the right direction.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/21/us-loosens-rules-engagement-for-isis-in-afghanistan.html
“Now,” a U.S. official told Fox News, “we can kill ISIS in Afghanistan just for wearing the T-shirt or waving their flag."
How's that for a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I still agree with Dave that we shouldn't be over there, but if we are going to fight a war, we should fight to win.
-
It's Marketing, John. I don't believe it.
I posted this on the site formerly known as POA, but I was watching a series called "The Fighting Season" about a unit in our war in Afghanistan. They had a drone that was following a jihadist riding a motorcycle driven by a jihadist with an RPG strapped to his back.
They could have taken him out at any time. However, they had to contact and get the approval of an attorney in the JAG corps before they could do anything. He was driving all over, making stops in a couple of villages, going into buildings, etc.
That took time, even after they presented this to the attorney. Before they received approval, they guy drove into a heavily wooded grove of trees, and some time later, exited the grove without the RPG.
Until our military can take out the enemy as they see fit, without having to check with lawyers or politicians, we will never win another war.
-
We are not in a war in Afghanistan. We are in a stupid state of limbo/peace keeping/stabilization/what the fuck ever mode. That's why we can't shoot and kill whoever we see fit. We have no purpose there and I feel bad for the reported very nice people that must suffer and live there, but we need to go. Yes when we leave it will fall back into chaos and the Taliban/Al Qaeda/ISIS/Whatever the fuck they are calling themselves/ will take over again and it will seem that it was all for naught. However, we did eventually get Bin Laden and maybe we can use this as a lesson for the future.
That lesson should be, but likely will be ignored, is that if we decide to invade a foreign country, for whatever reason, we should plan to invade with overwhelming force, dominate and control the entire country, not just the key cities, plan for a long occupation and reconstruction, be able to repel any outside forces trying to disrupt the process. We should be able to keep the peace and security everywhere while we rebuild and only leave when the stated goal of complete reconstruction and native security is complete.
This means to me that in the case of Afghanistan, we should have invaded with at least a 500,000 troop force and we should have had another force of 500,000 to follow after combat was over. We should have committed to billions of dollars worth of reconstruction and stayed there until we had a satisfactory, functioning state with a modern connection to the west. Likely on the order of 20 years, so that old ways and ignorance could be replaced with modern thinking and education with time.
Sadly, we still think every conflict is WWII and we can just get in and get out in short order, be greeted as saviors and liberators and things will quickly go in an orderly fashion according to our simple plans. We are likely to fail again and again until our country is dead broke and can't go to war anymore.
I firmly believe that war shouldn't be taken lightly and that's what we do. I believe that if we are to attack and invade a foreign country, we should commit to winning the battles and the war by whatever means necessary, but we should also commit to the complete reconstruction and redirection of this foreign land, otherwise what is the point?? If we held ourselves to this higher standard, likely we would see the costs, and never invade in the first place. I am certain, we would be just fine without military adventures all around the globe.
-
I don't think we should invade and occupy countries any longer. We should do surgical strikes at the people that want to harm us. That means special forces, and supporting air power. Bang, bang your dead, and then LEAVE.
-
Sadly, we still think every conflict is WWII and we can just get in and get out in short order,
I deleted all the parts of your post that I agreed with.
The only part I disagreed with is your assertion that in WWII we were able to "get in and get out in short order".
True, we went in and won the war in relatively short order. But to the best of my recollection, we maintained a military presence in the countries we defeated for decades.
-
I deleted all the parts of your post that I agreed with.
The only part I disagreed with is your assertion that in WWII we were able to "get in and get out in short order".
True, we went in and won the war in relatively short order. But to the best of my recollection, we maintained a military presence in the countries we defeated for decades.
Point of fact, we are still there.
-
Point of fact, we are still there.
I started to point that out, but in reality, we are not there enforcing the peace treaty they signed any more. We are there at their invitation and request to help provide for their defense. But while those countries like to say that they are footing the bill for our troops over there, they are only footing part of the bill. And they get as much or more out of the arrangement than we do.
-
I started to point that out, but in reality, we are not there enforcing the peace treaty they signed any more. We are there at their invitation and request to help provide for their defense. But while those countries like to say that they are footing the bill for our troops over there, they are only footing part of the bill. And they get as much or more out of the arrangement than we do.
The only part I disagreed with is your assertion that in WWII we were able to "get in and get out in short order".
True, we went in and won the war in relatively short order. But to the best of my recollection, we maintained a military presence in the countries we defeated for decades.
Point of fact, we are still there.
I started to point that out, but in reality, we are not there enforcing the peace treaty they signed any more. We are there at their invitation and request to help provide for their defense. But while those countries like to say that they are footing the bill for our troops over there, they are only footing part of the bill. And they get as much or more out of the arrangement than we do.
We are there because we want to be there and that has always been the case. Our military commanders like having nice developed forward operating bases and positions. We as a people seem to get all warm and fuzzy about "projecting force" around the globe. We seem to get off on being the world's police. We seem to think that by being all up in everyone's business, we will be safer. We hate the idea of somebody else being the world cop.
So if you want to dominate the globe, you need bases all over the globe and that includes Europe.
-
So if you want to dominate the globe, you need bases all over the globe and that includes Europe.
And Japan. And Korea.
-
And Japan. And Korea.
Yes. And I think we were hoping for one in Iraq too.
-
We are there because we want to be there and that has always been the case. Our military commanders like having nice developed forward operating bases and positions. We as a people seem to get all warm and fuzzy about "projecting force" around the globe. We seem to get off on being the world's police. We seem to think that by being all up in everyone's business, we will be safer. We hate the idea of somebody else being the world cop.
So if you want to dominate the globe, you need bases all over the globe and that includes Europe.
I think you just agreed with me, at least to a large extent. Our bases around the world are mostly of mutual consent and benefit.