“The lessons? Our enemies are human, they can be beaten, and hell hath no fury like a woman sick of sharia.
34 Replies to “Lessons Of COIN”
This may be true from most of our points of view, however liberals are opposed to this strategy as they intrinsically believe that all cultures are equal and that this woman should have been arrested.
I take small comfort from the thought that the Taliban are getting tired? I suspect most of their supporters are there simply because they see no other option. When Nato is gone what will have changed? Resources are limited, jobs non-existant. Mostly a subsistance life. Corruption is rampant. The business of fighting is one of the few industries that pay.
I come from the Vietnam era. The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.
Superbly written piece.
The piece echoes what I’ve been told privately from those with military connections. The Taliban are taking enormous losses.
We never hear about the enemy body counts because our governments are stupid.
“I come from the Vietnam era. The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, in a B-52 wing that saw heavy action over Laos and North Vietnam. We lost 4 B-52s and some good men in the process.
The war was lost in Washington, not in Vietnam. The ridiculous rules of engagement got the enemy half-way to victory. For instance, our troops weren’t allowed to pursue the enemy to their rest and martialing camps in Laos and North Vietnam. Our Air Force was forbidden to bomb Haiphong, the only major seaport they had. (We might have hit Russian ships and killed Russians, you see. Pathetic.)
If we’d done in the mid-60s what Nixon finally ordered in 1972, it’d be part of the answer and we’d have won. Nixon ordered major ground forces into Cambodia, destroying the NVA’s ground troop martialing bases in that country When Nixon also ordered the major B-52 saturation raids, we finally did bomb the major military targets in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. What we didn’t destroy by bombing, we made unusable. We also sewed that harbor with a huge number of anti-ship mines, making the port unusable for months. We finally put a really major hurt on the enemy logistics.
That’s why the enemy came back to the peace negotiation table in Paris. By this strategic bombing, Nixon “gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse”. Negotiate or be obliterated.
I dispute the notion in the article you can’t kill your way to victory. History also disputes it. “Fick and Nagl are correct that we can’t just kill our way to victory, but many casual observers of the war don’t comprehend the psychology of warfare. Fick and Nagl do. They understand the profound impact of continual losses on the human psyche and the emotional devastation of death without victory.”
“If there’s one thing that I learned while in Iraq, it’s that our enemy is every bit as human as we are, and even their religious fanaticism does not make them immune to exhaustion or despair.”
Americans are truly the most frightening people on Earth. Except for Canadians. These Arabs have no idea who they’re f-ing with.
ct said: “The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
The difference is the VC had a home to go back to in the North, some place safe. The Afghan Taliban have nothing. That’s a hell of a way to live. Young guys can do it for a while, but even they have limits to their vitality. Eventually, they wear down.
What a freakin’ nightmare way to fight a war though, jeeze.
Not sure the women are safe under the current government plan either.
They have to face a government panel before they can be accepted into a women’s shelter.
And it goes downhill from there.
What’s really needed is to go after these guys even during the winter months. NATOs fighting troops come from countries that require their soldiers to fight and operate in the cold. What we’ve been doing is stopping during the winter months (Nov to Mar)in order to forego friendly casualties and allowing the bad guys to go back to their homes and relax. Then the “fighting season” begins around end-March right after the poppy harvest–what we should be doing is making these jerks live in the mountains during the winter months and not allow them to come down and harvest poppy. Unfortunately, our Afghan allies don’t like the cold either…and we can’t do ops without them (by Afghan presidential decree).
“The difference is the VC had a home to go back to in the North, some place safe. The Afghan Taliban have nothing”
I guess that’s why some of them want to come to Canada,for a bit of R&R before they go back and take up the cause.
I knew several Vietnam vets,and they confirmed what Dave in pa says,the Army had to retake areas repeatedly as victory was declared and the troops moved out, only to see the VC move back in.
I think the biggest problem in Vietnam was the reporting of it to the good folks back home. Images of war to non-military types are quite shocking,and much of the MSM at that time was responsible for American people turning away from support for their own soldiers.
My Uncle, combat veteran of WW2,always maintained that the press had to be restricted in their access to the combat zone.
It’s to the credit of Canadians that even though our MSM has tried the same BS, our troops are still backed by most of us.
The wisdom of the (SDA) crowd:
– Time for Canada to bring home our troops and get ready to defend Canada from real threats. – Posted by: Fred at October 7, 2010 5:48 PM
– We should not be there. The people of Afghanistan have to support freedom and democracy first. Before that happens we are wasting time, money and Canadian lives. – Posted by: Dan Tappin at October 7, 2010 5:49 PM
– As for the Afghan region …. a culture of corruption that is never going to change …. ever. How do civilized people deal with that? The only way to end a tribal culture is to completely destroy it. – Posted by: OMMAG at October 7, 2010 5:56 PM
– When our troops first deployed there I was just as gung ho as most Canadians at the time that we would show them the path to a free and democratic life style. Boy was I wrong. Now after learning a lot about Islam and its ways I see the futility of us being there trying to change them into something they do not want to be. They are Islamic people in an Islamic country and they have no interest in democracy or freedom. They want to live as they always have, governed by Sharia law in a tribal system with the strongest person available as their leader. Neither freedom nor democracy mean a thing to them A free society and Islam are not compatible…Bring our troops home. – Posted by: Bob Devine at October 7, 2010 7:14 PM
– These are backward tribal child molesters. They will never be our allies. I don’t care about them. I just cared about sending a post 9/11 message and that didn’t get sent. – Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 7, 2010 8:12 PM
– I’ve never supported the notion of putting troops in Afstan. Sorry. We (the west, that is) should have nuked the Taliban from the get-go. – Posted by: Sean at October 7, 2010 8:55 PM
– Believing Muslims will always ultimately seek Shariah law and is that what our boys are dying for? – Posted by: Steve Smith at October 7, 2010 9:22 PM
– The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent. – Posted by: The Phantom at October 7, 2010 10:58 PM
– Yeah what-ever happened with “shock and awe” ??? Imperial Japan was a stubborn, implacable enemy if there ever was one and we got their attention—“they saw the light!!”(pun intended) – Posted by: sasquatch at October 7, 2010 11:29 PM
– Others have said it more eloquently but the fact is that NATO is not fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan. NATO is fighting the indigenous people, and their ideas, of Afghanistan. – Posted by: Joe at October 8, 2010 9:34 AM
And that’s just from one thread four months ago.
Of the 24 points issued by Gen. Petraeus in his Aug 2010 COMISAF Counterinsurgency Guidance for the military and civilian members of the NATO ISAF and US Forces-Afghanistan (isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/COMISAF/COMISAF_COIN_Guidance_01Aug10_.doc), precisely two — count’em, TWO — relate to the flexing of military firepower muscle (and one of those is about the need for discipline and restrain in the use of that strength — “Hunt the enemy aggressively, but use only the firepower needed to win a fight. We can’t win without fighting, but we also cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Moreover, if we kill civilians or damage their property in the course of our operations, we will create more enemies than our operations eliminate. That’s exactly what the Taliban want. Don’t fall into their trap. We must continue our efforts to reduce civilian casualties to an absolute minimum.”).
Instead, the majority focus on things that many, many people — fewer on SDA — have been saying for quite some time: to “succeed” in Afghanistan, hard power is obviously necessary, but it’s soft power that will win the day:
– Secure and serve the population.
– Live among the people.
– Help confront the culture of impunity.
– Help Afghans build accountable governance.
– Hold what we secure.
– Foster lasting solutions.
– Be a good guest.
– Consult and build relationships, but not just with those who seek us out.
– Walk.
– Etc.
Thanks for your optimism, Davenport. From the very end of the second article linked from the Corner post: In the end the Taliban would return to their own land, he said. “This is our country, these are our people, and we have only to retreat and wait and use other tactics.”
It’s called “burying the lede”.
“Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
Phantom- That pretty well sums it up. Many North Vietnamese men had tattoos that read “born in the north, to die in the south”.
I know a few Vietnamese, and I know a few Afghan immigrants. Apples and oranges.
I have less faith in muslim women leading the culture out of the 8th century. Even in western women’s movements, a small minority of women led the charge. Many women, like my older sister, were opposed to the women’s lib movement. The comfort and security of traditional roles was more appealing to most women. Now that I’m older and no wiser, I’ve given up on taking sides.
The left-wing hatred of Sarah Palin is similar to what I saw happening in the sixties and seventies. “Liberated” women had a real hate on for women in aprons. They knew it was an up hill battle, so high profile, traditional, conservative women were a real obstacle.
Our enemies are human, they can be beaten, and hell hath no fury like a woman sick of sharia.
Too bad Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, Sharia is the very basis of it’s legal system and that fact(which many here ignore/forget) is enshrined in it’s constitution, same as Iraq.
Why do you even comment here Davenport? Taking comments out of context is a new and surprising low for you. What was the subject on October 7th?
I still say Afghanistan is being mismanaged, because that what I see in all the media I can get. It’s my opinion Canadian Forces could be a lot farther along than they are if they had better kit, HELICOPTERS, and weren’t being forced to fight with one arm behind them by unrealistic ROEs. And most of all, if there were more guys to rotate to the sharp end and give everyone more rest.
This article says they are grinding the Taliban down, that’s great. Grind faster. Terrify them. Make them give up -this- year from the sheer horror of it. Its war. You’re supposed to WIN it, not drag it out.
You got any relatives in the Forces Davenport? I do. I’m not happy about it. I think they’re liable to die for your tender sensibilities, because that appears to be what those ROEs are designed to protect.
By the way Davenport, here’s my whole comment from October:
“Kathy, just read your post. Gotta disagree with you a little.
“I just cared about sending a post 9/11 message and that didn’t get sent.”
It did actually. The message was something like, “Thanks for that attack, we deserved it. Would you like some free Viagra and smokes?”
That’s the message they got.
The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent.”
The subject of the day was: “Fighting And Dying In Afghanistan. For What?” https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=15051
So if our subject post today indicates the Taliban are getting the “scary infidels” message, awesome. Faster please.
And don’t be such a slime next time, eh? Its degrading.
* FROM THE COMMENTS: “In my family we got grounded…not undergrounded.”
never mind af’stan, or the rest of the stoneage middle east…
they’re bringing the war right to our very doorstep.
*
The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent.”
An extensive survey in Afghanistan determined that 92% of Afghans do not know about 911.
Afghans think we are infidel invaders, period.
They do not know that they “annoyed” us so they aren’t going to get that particular message. http://tinyurl.com/6y6zcxp
However it should be noted that other Muslims outside of Afghanistan may be getting the “Thanks for that attack, we deserved it. Would you like some free Viagra and smokes?” message.
dmorris @ 12:47 said “I think the biggest problem in Vietnam was the reporting of it to the good folks back home”. Exactly. During the Vietnam War we kept hearing about body counts from the press and some pretty graphic images. Although, to be fair, the military for whatever stupid reason was feeding the body counts to the press. I never could see the logic in that, as it just seemed to feed the peace at any cost Hanoi Jane crowd.
Dave in PA is right. This pussyfooting around did not happen during WW II. They went in and used whatever assets were necessary to do the job and if German civilians got hurt in the process because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time that was an unfortunate cost. There is opinion out there that civilians were deliberately targeted. There were no reports about body counts given to the media or graphic images. Then after Admiral Doenitz’s surrender, the western allies began to rebuild both the democracy and the infrastructure.
War is h*ll and you need to do what it takes to win, or loose like Vietnam was lost.
Read up on the campaigns of Genghis Khan.
The Phantom: “It’s my opinion Canadian Forces could be a lot farther along than they are if they had better kit, HELICOPTERS, and weren’t being forced to fight with one arm behind them by unrealistic ROEs.”
Those “unrealistic ROEs” — i.e., COIN — have been credited with turning the Iraq conflict around in favour of the US-led coalition and is now being credited by some informed observers and apparently by Kate with starting to turn the Afghanistan conflict around too.
Interestingly, the entire premise of COIN is that it goes beyond shock-and-awe-style blunt combat and massive firepower that you voiced support for back in that October thread, a notion that you STILL seem unable to grasp.
Heck I’m tired of Sharia Law and all it’s barbarity and I don’t live under Taliban rule. We could defeat the Taliban but that would require our troops to kill as many as possible and Liberal MSM would never tolerate that.
Afghanistan may be a new type of “lost”.
The Taliban may sign a Armistice(if they really do tire of fighting) and then regain the rule of the sharia constituted Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through the ballot box.
This is probably the goal of all those negotiations that the Taliban has been having with Karzai.
I hope no one here is going to be expecting Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden to be behind bars at the end of all this.
Sharia Law isn’t going anywhere, learn that because that is the reality.
Our soldiers are over there fighting for the institution of Sharia Law and a corrupt Karzai government that our politicians allowed to be created over there.
That was a fait accompli under President George W. Bush to prove that we believed that “Islam is the Religion of Peace” and that we aren’t at war with Islam, or weren’t some of you paying attention at the time?
“Fick and Nagl do. They understand the profound impact of continual losses on the human psyche and the emotional devastation of death without victory.”
I’ve been feeling that way about our western commitment to Afghanistan since 2007. Just what is a victory? Our people fight and die for Karzai and the creeps he has in his mafia fiefdom? Meanwhile Al-Qaida, the bad guys we really want, hide out in Pakistan.
COIN works by killing and capturing insurgents and arresting and executing or jugging sympathizers, being nice doesn’t work worth a damn.
People may get tired of war but if you do not eliminate another problem (ie- Sharia law) you end up back at square one. It is similar to beating the Nazis only to give the communists a free pass. Both were monsters, one was only slightly different.
Davenport, for a woman who’s never been in the military and never even fired a gun in her life, you seem to have some extravagant ideas about what I can or cannot grasp.
Unrealistic ROEs include being forbidden from firing on the enemy unless they shoot first. So, no ambushes. That’s just one example, the ROE is the size of a frickin’ paperback.
We could be doing better. But because we are lumbered with people like you, Davenport, who are so busy trying to prove people like me are bad and evil that they’ll happily embrace defeat just to see the look on my face, because of Davenports who think war is supposed to be some kind of welfare program, we are not doing better. We are getting by.
I’d like to see the powers that be ignore your sorry liberal self for six months, go at it like they mean it, win it and get the hell out. Wars suck, they should be as short as possible.
Phantom, yes!
“We never hear about the enemy body counts because our governments are stupid.”
Actually, you do hear about body counts on a fairly regular basis. You can read the news on any given morning and find out that X number of taliban were killed by a missile strike at such-and-such location. And the few times that we’ve engaged them in actual battles, the numbers were duly reported. We just don’t bother keeping a running tally. While doing so might be a good way to keep the football fans entertained, it has no bearing on the war. In COIN, body-counts aren’t a measure of progress.
whoa, whoa, whao. hold on sda, you are NOT permitted to quote from, link to, or to any link(s) linking in a chain, to New York Times or any other member of the MSM.
hypocrites.
Dave in Pa @10:08 – thanks for the comment. “I dispute the notion in the article you can’t kill your way to victory.”
My knowledge of war comes from documentaries, and it’s been about three years since I sat through all 11 hours of Ken Burns’ The Civil War (he wasn’t a self parody yet when he made that), but I remember being startled by a thing some scholar or other mentioned seemingly casually in about the last 10 minutes of the series: It was along the lines of if the South had won, the Union would simply have assembled another army and send them into the field. The South had no other army.
Davenport @11:05 – we just can’t win with you, can we, Davvy? If we all agree about something we’re yodeling in an echo chamber; if we don’t all agree with each other – like say about Afghanistan: Nuke it? Try to turn it into a nice secular democracy? – well then we’re all running around like headless chickens. Me, I’d be in favour of seriously colonizing the place – think of it as old-style neo-neo-conservatism – but I’ve come, tragically for me, to the conclusion that we can’t colonize our own d*mn selves anymore.
correction: “…sent it…”
beagle – why do you bother?
“beagle – why do you bother?”
To parade its delusional self-image of being intellectually superior and remarkably witty.
Ignore it and it will go away.
The Phantom: “Unrealistic ROEs include being forbidden from firing on the enemy unless they shoot first. So, no ambushes…We could be doing better. But because we are lumbered with people like you, Davenport, who are so busy trying to prove people like me are bad and evil…”
You’re not bad or evil, Phantom, just frequently clueless. To wit: “Turning Tables, U.S. Troops Ambush Taliban With Swift and Lethal Results” (nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17afghan.html)
Yeh. Our ROE are more lax these days than at any time since Korea. There were legitimate complaints to be made about ROE issued on UN “peacekeeping” tours, but none of those complaints apply to Afghanistan.
This may be true from most of our points of view, however liberals are opposed to this strategy as they intrinsically believe that all cultures are equal and that this woman should have been arrested.
I take small comfort from the thought that the Taliban are getting tired? I suspect most of their supporters are there simply because they see no other option. When Nato is gone what will have changed? Resources are limited, jobs non-existant. Mostly a subsistance life. Corruption is rampant. The business of fighting is one of the few industries that pay.
I come from the Vietnam era. The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.
Superbly written piece.
The piece echoes what I’ve been told privately from those with military connections. The Taliban are taking enormous losses.
We never hear about the enemy body counts because our governments are stupid.
“I come from the Vietnam era. The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
I was in the Air Force during the Vietnam era, in a B-52 wing that saw heavy action over Laos and North Vietnam. We lost 4 B-52s and some good men in the process.
The war was lost in Washington, not in Vietnam. The ridiculous rules of engagement got the enemy half-way to victory. For instance, our troops weren’t allowed to pursue the enemy to their rest and martialing camps in Laos and North Vietnam. Our Air Force was forbidden to bomb Haiphong, the only major seaport they had. (We might have hit Russian ships and killed Russians, you see. Pathetic.)
If we’d done in the mid-60s what Nixon finally ordered in 1972, it’d be part of the answer and we’d have won. Nixon ordered major ground forces into Cambodia, destroying the NVA’s ground troop martialing bases in that country When Nixon also ordered the major B-52 saturation raids, we finally did bomb the major military targets in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. What we didn’t destroy by bombing, we made unusable. We also sewed that harbor with a huge number of anti-ship mines, making the port unusable for months. We finally put a really major hurt on the enemy logistics.
That’s why the enemy came back to the peace negotiation table in Paris. By this strategic bombing, Nixon “gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse”. Negotiate or be obliterated.
I dispute the notion in the article you can’t kill your way to victory. History also disputes it. “Fick and Nagl are correct that we can’t just kill our way to victory, but many casual observers of the war don’t comprehend the psychology of warfare. Fick and Nagl do. They understand the profound impact of continual losses on the human psyche and the emotional devastation of death without victory.”
“If there’s one thing that I learned while in Iraq, it’s that our enemy is every bit as human as we are, and even their religious fanaticism does not make them immune to exhaustion or despair.”
Americans are truly the most frightening people on Earth. Except for Canadians. These Arabs have no idea who they’re f-ing with.
ct said: “The NVA and VC took far more casualities than the Taliban ever dreamt of and continued to fight. Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
The difference is the VC had a home to go back to in the North, some place safe. The Afghan Taliban have nothing. That’s a hell of a way to live. Young guys can do it for a while, but even they have limits to their vitality. Eventually, they wear down.
What a freakin’ nightmare way to fight a war though, jeeze.
Not sure the women are safe under the current government plan either.
They have to face a government panel before they can be accepted into a women’s shelter.
And it goes downhill from there.
What’s really needed is to go after these guys even during the winter months. NATOs fighting troops come from countries that require their soldiers to fight and operate in the cold. What we’ve been doing is stopping during the winter months (Nov to Mar)in order to forego friendly casualties and allowing the bad guys to go back to their homes and relax. Then the “fighting season” begins around end-March right after the poppy harvest–what we should be doing is making these jerks live in the mountains during the winter months and not allow them to come down and harvest poppy. Unfortunately, our Afghan allies don’t like the cold either…and we can’t do ops without them (by Afghan presidential decree).
“The difference is the VC had a home to go back to in the North, some place safe. The Afghan Taliban have nothing”
I guess that’s why some of them want to come to Canada,for a bit of R&R before they go back and take up the cause.
I knew several Vietnam vets,and they confirmed what Dave in pa says,the Army had to retake areas repeatedly as victory was declared and the troops moved out, only to see the VC move back in.
I think the biggest problem in Vietnam was the reporting of it to the good folks back home. Images of war to non-military types are quite shocking,and much of the MSM at that time was responsible for American people turning away from support for their own soldiers.
My Uncle, combat veteran of WW2,always maintained that the press had to be restricted in their access to the combat zone.
It’s to the credit of Canadians that even though our MSM has tried the same BS, our troops are still backed by most of us.
The wisdom of the (SDA) crowd:
– Time for Canada to bring home our troops and get ready to defend Canada from real threats. – Posted by: Fred at October 7, 2010 5:48 PM
– We should not be there. The people of Afghanistan have to support freedom and democracy first. Before that happens we are wasting time, money and Canadian lives. – Posted by: Dan Tappin at October 7, 2010 5:49 PM
– As for the Afghan region …. a culture of corruption that is never going to change …. ever. How do civilized people deal with that? The only way to end a tribal culture is to completely destroy it. – Posted by: OMMAG at October 7, 2010 5:56 PM
– When our troops first deployed there I was just as gung ho as most Canadians at the time that we would show them the path to a free and democratic life style. Boy was I wrong. Now after learning a lot about Islam and its ways I see the futility of us being there trying to change them into something they do not want to be. They are Islamic people in an Islamic country and they have no interest in democracy or freedom. They want to live as they always have, governed by Sharia law in a tribal system with the strongest person available as their leader. Neither freedom nor democracy mean a thing to them A free society and Islam are not compatible…Bring our troops home. – Posted by: Bob Devine at October 7, 2010 7:14 PM
– These are backward tribal child molesters. They will never be our allies. I don’t care about them. I just cared about sending a post 9/11 message and that didn’t get sent. – Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 7, 2010 8:12 PM
– I’ve never supported the notion of putting troops in Afstan. Sorry. We (the west, that is) should have nuked the Taliban from the get-go. – Posted by: Sean at October 7, 2010 8:55 PM
– Believing Muslims will always ultimately seek Shariah law and is that what our boys are dying for? – Posted by: Steve Smith at October 7, 2010 9:22 PM
– The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent. – Posted by: The Phantom at October 7, 2010 10:58 PM
– Yeah what-ever happened with “shock and awe” ??? Imperial Japan was a stubborn, implacable enemy if there ever was one and we got their attention—“they saw the light!!”(pun intended) – Posted by: sasquatch at October 7, 2010 11:29 PM
– Others have said it more eloquently but the fact is that NATO is not fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan. NATO is fighting the indigenous people, and their ideas, of Afghanistan. – Posted by: Joe at October 8, 2010 9:34 AM
And that’s just from one thread four months ago.
Of the 24 points issued by Gen. Petraeus in his Aug 2010 COMISAF Counterinsurgency Guidance for the military and civilian members of the NATO ISAF and US Forces-Afghanistan (isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/COMISAF/COMISAF_COIN_Guidance_01Aug10_.doc), precisely two — count’em, TWO — relate to the flexing of military firepower muscle (and one of those is about the need for discipline and restrain in the use of that strength — “Hunt the enemy aggressively, but use only the firepower needed to win a fight. We can’t win without fighting, but we also cannot kill or capture our way to victory. Moreover, if we kill civilians or damage their property in the course of our operations, we will create more enemies than our operations eliminate. That’s exactly what the Taliban want. Don’t fall into their trap. We must continue our efforts to reduce civilian casualties to an absolute minimum.”).
Instead, the majority focus on things that many, many people — fewer on SDA — have been saying for quite some time: to “succeed” in Afghanistan, hard power is obviously necessary, but it’s soft power that will win the day:
– Secure and serve the population.
– Live among the people.
– Help confront the culture of impunity.
– Help Afghans build accountable governance.
– Hold what we secure.
– Foster lasting solutions.
– Be a good guest.
– Consult and build relationships, but not just with those who seek us out.
– Walk.
– Etc.
Thanks for your optimism, Davenport. From the very end of the second article linked from the Corner post:
In the end the Taliban would return to their own land, he said. “This is our country, these are our people, and we have only to retreat and wait and use other tactics.”
It’s called “burying the lede”.
“Maybe their ideological committment was more profound.”
Phantom- That pretty well sums it up. Many North Vietnamese men had tattoos that read “born in the north, to die in the south”.
I know a few Vietnamese, and I know a few Afghan immigrants. Apples and oranges.
I have less faith in muslim women leading the culture out of the 8th century. Even in western women’s movements, a small minority of women led the charge. Many women, like my older sister, were opposed to the women’s lib movement. The comfort and security of traditional roles was more appealing to most women. Now that I’m older and no wiser, I’ve given up on taking sides.
The left-wing hatred of Sarah Palin is similar to what I saw happening in the sixties and seventies. “Liberated” women had a real hate on for women in aprons. They knew it was an up hill battle, so high profile, traditional, conservative women were a real obstacle.
Our enemies are human, they can be beaten, and hell hath no fury like a woman sick of sharia.
Too bad Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, Sharia is the very basis of it’s legal system and that fact(which many here ignore/forget) is enshrined in it’s constitution, same as Iraq.
Why do you even comment here Davenport? Taking comments out of context is a new and surprising low for you. What was the subject on October 7th?
I still say Afghanistan is being mismanaged, because that what I see in all the media I can get. It’s my opinion Canadian Forces could be a lot farther along than they are if they had better kit, HELICOPTERS, and weren’t being forced to fight with one arm behind them by unrealistic ROEs. And most of all, if there were more guys to rotate to the sharp end and give everyone more rest.
This article says they are grinding the Taliban down, that’s great. Grind faster. Terrify them. Make them give up -this- year from the sheer horror of it. Its war. You’re supposed to WIN it, not drag it out.
You got any relatives in the Forces Davenport? I do. I’m not happy about it. I think they’re liable to die for your tender sensibilities, because that appears to be what those ROEs are designed to protect.
By the way Davenport, here’s my whole comment from October:
“Kathy, just read your post. Gotta disagree with you a little.
“I just cared about sending a post 9/11 message and that didn’t get sent.”
It did actually. The message was something like, “Thanks for that attack, we deserved it. Would you like some free Viagra and smokes?”
That’s the message they got.
The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent.”
The subject of the day was: “Fighting And Dying In Afghanistan. For What?”
https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=15051
So if our subject post today indicates the Taliban are getting the “scary infidels” message, awesome. Faster please.
And don’t be such a slime next time, eh? Its degrading.
*
FROM THE COMMENTS:
“In my family we got grounded…not undergrounded.”
never mind af’stan, or the rest of the stoneage middle east…
they’re bringing the war right to our very doorstep.
*
The message you and I wanted to send, “Do not annoy the scary infidels” that message definitely did not get sent.”
An extensive survey in Afghanistan determined that 92% of Afghans do not know about 911.
Afghans think we are infidel invaders, period.
They do not know that they “annoyed” us so they aren’t going to get that particular message.
http://tinyurl.com/6y6zcxp
However it should be noted that other Muslims outside of Afghanistan may be getting the “Thanks for that attack, we deserved it. Would you like some free Viagra and smokes?” message.
dmorris @ 12:47 said “I think the biggest problem in Vietnam was the reporting of it to the good folks back home”. Exactly. During the Vietnam War we kept hearing about body counts from the press and some pretty graphic images. Although, to be fair, the military for whatever stupid reason was feeding the body counts to the press. I never could see the logic in that, as it just seemed to feed the peace at any cost Hanoi Jane crowd.
Dave in PA is right. This pussyfooting around did not happen during WW II. They went in and used whatever assets were necessary to do the job and if German civilians got hurt in the process because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time that was an unfortunate cost. There is opinion out there that civilians were deliberately targeted. There were no reports about body counts given to the media or graphic images. Then after Admiral Doenitz’s surrender, the western allies began to rebuild both the democracy and the infrastructure.
War is h*ll and you need to do what it takes to win, or loose like Vietnam was lost.
Read up on the campaigns of Genghis Khan.
The Phantom: “It’s my opinion Canadian Forces could be a lot farther along than they are if they had better kit, HELICOPTERS, and weren’t being forced to fight with one arm behind them by unrealistic ROEs.”
Those “unrealistic ROEs” — i.e., COIN — have been credited with turning the Iraq conflict around in favour of the US-led coalition and is now being credited by some informed observers and apparently by Kate with starting to turn the Afghanistan conflict around too.
Interestingly, the entire premise of COIN is that it goes beyond shock-and-awe-style blunt combat and massive firepower that you voiced support for back in that October thread, a notion that you STILL seem unable to grasp.
Heck I’m tired of Sharia Law and all it’s barbarity and I don’t live under Taliban rule. We could defeat the Taliban but that would require our troops to kill as many as possible and Liberal MSM would never tolerate that.
Afghanistan may be a new type of “lost”.
The Taliban may sign a Armistice(if they really do tire of fighting) and then regain the rule of the sharia constituted Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through the ballot box.
This is probably the goal of all those negotiations that the Taliban has been having with Karzai.
I hope no one here is going to be expecting Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden to be behind bars at the end of all this.
Sharia Law isn’t going anywhere, learn that because that is the reality.
Our soldiers are over there fighting for the institution of Sharia Law and a corrupt Karzai government that our politicians allowed to be created over there.
That was a fait accompli under President George W. Bush to prove that we believed that “Islam is the Religion of Peace” and that we aren’t at war with Islam, or weren’t some of you paying attention at the time?
“Fick and Nagl do. They understand the profound impact of continual losses on the human psyche and the emotional devastation of death without victory.”
I’ve been feeling that way about our western commitment to Afghanistan since 2007. Just what is a victory? Our people fight and die for Karzai and the creeps he has in his mafia fiefdom? Meanwhile Al-Qaida, the bad guys we really want, hide out in Pakistan.
COIN works by killing and capturing insurgents and arresting and executing or jugging sympathizers, being nice doesn’t work worth a damn.
People may get tired of war but if you do not eliminate another problem (ie- Sharia law) you end up back at square one. It is similar to beating the Nazis only to give the communists a free pass. Both were monsters, one was only slightly different.
Davenport, for a woman who’s never been in the military and never even fired a gun in her life, you seem to have some extravagant ideas about what I can or cannot grasp.
Unrealistic ROEs include being forbidden from firing on the enemy unless they shoot first. So, no ambushes. That’s just one example, the ROE is the size of a frickin’ paperback.
We could be doing better. But because we are lumbered with people like you, Davenport, who are so busy trying to prove people like me are bad and evil that they’ll happily embrace defeat just to see the look on my face, because of Davenports who think war is supposed to be some kind of welfare program, we are not doing better. We are getting by.
I’d like to see the powers that be ignore your sorry liberal self for six months, go at it like they mean it, win it and get the hell out. Wars suck, they should be as short as possible.
Phantom, yes!
“We never hear about the enemy body counts because our governments are stupid.”
Actually, you do hear about body counts on a fairly regular basis. You can read the news on any given morning and find out that X number of taliban were killed by a missile strike at such-and-such location. And the few times that we’ve engaged them in actual battles, the numbers were duly reported. We just don’t bother keeping a running tally. While doing so might be a good way to keep the football fans entertained, it has no bearing on the war. In COIN, body-counts aren’t a measure of progress.
whoa, whoa, whao. hold on sda, you are NOT permitted to quote from, link to, or to any link(s) linking in a chain, to New York Times or any other member of the MSM.
hypocrites.
Dave in Pa @10:08 – thanks for the comment. “I dispute the notion in the article you can’t kill your way to victory.”
My knowledge of war comes from documentaries, and it’s been about three years since I sat through all 11 hours of Ken Burns’ The Civil War (he wasn’t a self parody yet when he made that), but I remember being startled by a thing some scholar or other mentioned seemingly casually in about the last 10 minutes of the series: It was along the lines of if the South had won, the Union would simply have assembled another army and send them into the field. The South had no other army.
Davenport @11:05 – we just can’t win with you, can we, Davvy? If we all agree about something we’re yodeling in an echo chamber; if we don’t all agree with each other – like say about Afghanistan: Nuke it? Try to turn it into a nice secular democracy? – well then we’re all running around like headless chickens. Me, I’d be in favour of seriously colonizing the place – think of it as old-style neo-neo-conservatism – but I’ve come, tragically for me, to the conclusion that we can’t colonize our own d*mn selves anymore.
correction: “…sent it…”
beagle – why do you bother?
“beagle – why do you bother?”
To parade its delusional self-image of being intellectually superior and remarkably witty.
Ignore it and it will go away.
The Phantom: “Unrealistic ROEs include being forbidden from firing on the enemy unless they shoot first. So, no ambushes…We could be doing better. But because we are lumbered with people like you, Davenport, who are so busy trying to prove people like me are bad and evil…”
You’re not bad or evil, Phantom, just frequently clueless. To wit: “Turning Tables, U.S. Troops Ambush Taliban With Swift and Lethal Results” (nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17afghan.html)
Yeh. Our ROE are more lax these days than at any time since Korea. There were legitimate complaints to be made about ROE issued on UN “peacekeeping” tours, but none of those complaints apply to Afghanistan.