[QUOTE=Sitnam]
No seriously…‘the Surge’ is working.
[/QUOTE]
Really? What political advances have been made? That was the reason for the surge. A lower death rate does not mean anything as it wasn’t the reason given for the surge.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, so what? From NATO’s perspective it was a deliberate attack on a member state (namely the US).
[/quote]
It wasn’t a declaration of war invoking treaty obligations.
There was a terrorist incident. NATO countries rightly agreed to help the US as a gesture of sympathy.
(You seem to think that when Argentina invaded the Falklands the US should have sent troops.)
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Seriously, you need to do some research on this if you don’t know the answer to your question. It boggles the mind that you are from Europe (England/UK IIRC) and don’t know why NATO is in Afghanistan…or what role they are supposed to be playing (by their own request).
[/quote]
I know why we are in Afghanistan. I don’t know why we are in Iraq, nor why we put up with Bush spending so much time, manpower and money on Iraq.
My point is that Afghanistan was a just cause and NATO countries have willingly put in a lot of effort (and taken casualties) to help the US find Bin Laden and bring peace to the area.
But seeing how little priority Bush gives the conflict, I wonder why any of us stay.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What concerns me most about this is what appears to be an attempt to downscale this war from an acute problem requiring emergency action, as in getting the hell out, to a chronic problem that we will live with for many a year to come, *a la * Korea. This would suit the Bushivik agenda just fine, being the equivalent, for all practical purposes, of “enduring bases” and a “strategic relationship”.
[/QUOTE]
It is amazing how the Iraq war fell off the radar screen. Not completely off, but it hardly seems to register more than a blip or two whereas it was flashing “Red Alert” all the time as recently as last summer.
Frankly, Bin Laden and his ilk in the tribal regions of Pakistan pose a greater threat to Europe (especially Britain) than the US. The Pakistanis we have in the US are mostly educated and secular. Can you say the same about Britain? Pretty much every time you guys arrest some terror cell, it seems to trace back to Pakistan.
You don’t like the US’s involvement in Iraq, fine. But you seem to have little interest in your own well being. That’s the generic you, not you in particular. Even with the lackluster follow-thru the US has had in Afghanistan, I see Europe’s as being worse. This has been a NATO led effort for several years now, not a US led effort. According to the wikipedia article, the US has 28k troops there, Britain has between 6.7k and 7.7k, but France has about 1k, Italy about 2K and Germany < 4k. Those last 3 countries have populations and economies comparable, or larger, than the UK.
I would like to see Europe step up to the plate here.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, it could have something to do with the fact that they agreed to.
Gee, I don’t know…what do you think? NATO requested and was granted the command of the ISAF. Perhaps that has something to do with why the Euro’s should do anything in Afghanistan?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that was agreed upon in the spirit that NATO would help the US, wasn’t it?
Since the US has basically pulled out most of their troops to go conquer Iraq I think that absolves NATO.
And we, the Netherlands, are still in Afghanistan.
Of course there aren’t a whole lot of troops there as the Netherlands has a ridiculously small army anyway.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I don’t recall either WWI or WWII being direct attacks on the US either. And that was BEFORE we had a treaty to make us do anything. Put another way…does this mean that if Europe gets attacked we can tell them to go pound sand? I think that would be a decent compromise for losing all the wonderful ‘help’ the Euro’s (with the exception of the UK) has given us in Afghanistan. Sounds reasonable to you?
[/QUOTE]
Well, first of all the situation doesn’t compare at all.
Hitler was a force taking over the world, Bin Laden is the leader of a small group of people that happened to perform a very succesful terrorist attack.
That doesn’t really compare at all, does it?
And by the way, fuck you for only including the UK.
A lot of European countries have a presence in Afghanistan, although basically they don’t have any obligation after Mr. Bush said that catching Bin Laden wasn’t important anymore.
We are staying over there to try and rebuild the country after the chaos left by the US (bombing and running).
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Actually, John, now that I’ve had a chance to catch up on this thread, I wonder why we’re quibbling, since you agree with a basic point: that the death toll may fairly be divided into two groups - the invasion (March and April 2003) and everything that follows (however one wants to characterize this period). And that is where the rub lies: about 140 deaths during the invasion, more than 3,000 after that. It compels me to iterate my earlier analogy: imagine the post-WWII occupation of Germany being twenty times as bloody as D-Day!
Perhaps this is the answer to the question in my previous post. Instead of arguing over which slice of the apple to examine, let’s look at the whole apple.
[/QUOTE]
Well, welcome to 21st century. Modern “shooting war” is totally different than WW2. I don’t want to go to deep into details, but modern military has best recon ever, more stand-off and precision weapons than ever, best personal protection and best - and fastest available - combat medicine ever. Modern soldiers in modern shooting war are least likely to die than ever in history. But following peace keeping and anti-guerrillas operations are in turn nothing like actual “shooting war”. Satellites and UAVs won’t help much if your opponent looks like average citizen. GPS guided bombs are of no use against ambushes. We can easily destroy tanks from miles away or bomb whole cities into rubble, but there is almost nothing we can do about roadside bombs.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What concerns me most about this is what appears to be an attempt to downscale this war from an acute problem requiring emergency action, as in getting the hell out, to a chronic problem that we will live with for many a year to come, *a la * Korea. This would suit the Bushivik agenda just fine, being the equivalent, for all practical purposes, of “enduring bases” and a “strategic relationship”.
[/QUOTE]
South Korea may be one of the most anti-American democracies around, but they don’t truck bomb embassies or mortar our permanent bases. I have a feeling in 20-30 years that the grunts won’t look forward to being shipped off to Iraq for their six month tours as much as going to see the pretty South Korean women.
BTW 'luci, you may wish to get as much traction out of “Bushivik” as possible, since his term is winding down and all. Have you thought of something as um, clever for Hillary Clinton and her lackeyes who will, believe you me, relish the opportunity to step up to the bat? Is “Clintonista” too tawdry?
As for the OP, you need to get some historical perspective. Only ~4,000 dead over nearly five years? And we get the whole country of Iraq? We must be doing something right. Talk about a good deal. The only slight problem is the huge number of wounded – I’m too lazy to look now, but a year or so ago it was around 25,000 IIRC. But let’s get down to business. What are you trying to ascertain by analyzing month by month troop deaths? If one wants to go around gobbling up foreign territory one can’t be squeamish about the details. And your fascination with World War II is a pointless comparison, although common. It’s not like guerilla wars are atypical. Or boring.
For an American example, take our pacification (don’t you love that word?) of the Philippines: over a 14 year period we only lost approximately 5,000 soldiers, and that figure was helped by disease. Just worry if Iraq reaches USSR/Afghanistan numbers (~8 years, 15,000 dead, 55,000 wounded).
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, my real issue is with your OP-- it just throws stuff out there without any analysis. But there isn’t any real reason why the invasion of Iraq needs to be compared to WWII. Maybe it just shows that the “war” part of war is a lot more lopsided these days. Why not compare it to Vietnam?
I just don’t see any value in looking at the death toll without looking at what folks are dying for. Sometimes it is worth it, even if you and I don’t think it is this time.
[/QUOTE]
I hear you. What we have here is a difference in style. I thought it adequate merely to get the ball rolling, knowing I’d get plenty of “analysis” from the Screaming Millions (thrown out a few half-baked ideas myself along the way).
Your “is it worth it” question is implicit in the OP’s “what are we getting” question, a question that hasn’t much been addressed. Looks like I get a lot of the blame there, since my responce to Mr. Moto’s “there’s more to it than a headling” snark prompted my emphasis on the death tolls of the invasion and the aftermath.
So permit me to attempt to unhijack my own thread: Forget about the number of casualties. Just what are we getting for our “investment”? (an investment not only of lives and broken bodies but also of money - perhaps $1,000,000,000,000 by the time were done.)
To this end, I’ll start with the post marshmallow slipped in whilst I’ve been scribbling this: you say we’re “getting a good deal.” How so? What are we getting besides a lot of sand, maybe some oil someone can sell at a hundred bucks a barrel, a hell of a huge headache, and the disapprobation of the rest of the world? I personally would not invest a wooden nickel in such a scheme.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
..BTW 'luci, you may wish to get as much traction out of “Bushivik” as possible, since his term is winding down and all. Have you thought of something as um, clever for Hillary Clinton and her lackeyes who will, believe you me, relish the opportunity to step up to the bat? Is “Clintonista” too tawdry?..
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your concern. Should I require any assitance with my language skills, I will not hesitate.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
I hear you. What we have here is a difference in style. I thought it adequate merely to get the ball rolling, knowing I’d get plenty of “analysis” from the Screaming Millions (thrown out a few half-baked ideas myself along the way).
Your “is it worth it” question is implicit in the OP’s “what are we getting” question, a question that hasn’t much been addressed. Looks like I get a lot of the blame there, since my responce to Mr. Moto’s “there’s more to it than a headling” snark prompted my emphasis on the death tolls of the invasion and the aftermath.
So permit me to attempt to unhijack my own thread: Forget about the number of casualties. Just what are we getting for our “investment”? (an investment not only of lives and broken bodies but also of money - perhaps $1,000,000,000,000 by the time were done.)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you’re going to get much disagreement around here. But if it’s reasoned debate on this issue that you want, join in the GD thread started by one of our new Guests. I disagree with him, but at least he’s not a raving right-wing lunatic.
[QUOTE=glee]
It wasn’t a declaration of war invoking treaty obligations.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you think that is important? AFAIK, the treaty obligations are invoked if someone else ATTACKS one of the member states. Declared war has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
[QUOTE=glee]
There was a terrorist incident. NATO countries rightly agreed to help the US as a gesture of sympathy.
[/QUOTE]
Sez who? But leaving that aside, if they agreed to help…well, they agreed to help, regardless of the reason. Right?
[QUOTE=glee]
(You seem to think that when Argentina invaded the Falklands the US should have sent troops.)
[/QUOTE]
If the Falklands were sovereign British territory then the US SHOULD have offered whatever aid the Brits requested…and so should the rest of NATO.
[QUOTE=glee]
I know why we are in Afghanistan. I don’t know why we are in Iraq, nor why we put up with Bush spending so much time, manpower and money on Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Well, we were talking about Afghanistan. I don’t know why you are in Iraq either…for that matter, I’m unclear why WE are in Iraq.
[QUOTE=glee]
My point is that Afghanistan was a just cause and NATO countries have willingly put in a lot of effort (and taken casualties) to help the US find Bin Laden and bring peace to the area.
[/QUOTE]
And my point was that, aside from the Brits, the rest of NATO really HASN’T exactly gone to the mat on Afghanistan…‘just cause’ or not. The US is still the single largest contributor of troops and certainly of logistics support for Afghanistan…even though to us it’s seemingly a side show. That alone should tell you something. It tells ME something about the Euro’s commitment to Afghanistan. What it tells me is that while the US fucked up in Afghanistan, that NATO comes in for it’s share of the blame as well for not engaging more fully there. Is the US the only member of NATO besides the UK that can actually do anything substantial…or are we the only member of NATO besides the UK who WILL do anything substantial?
[QUOTE=glee]
But seeing how little priority Bush gives the conflict, I wonder why any of us stay.
[/QUOTE]
And vice versa…one wonders why the US is willing to remain in NATO when it’s clear that we are expected to do all of the heavy lifting…or nothing gets done. When even at ‘little priority’ for the US we have committed more men and material and support to an operation than countries who have no other commitments militarily.
-XT
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Yeah, but that was agreed upon in the spirit that NATO would help the US, wasn’t it?
Since the US has basically pulled out most of their troops to go conquer Iraq I think that absolves NATO.
And we, the Netherlands, are still in Afghanistan.
Of course there aren’t a whole lot of troops there as the Netherlands has a ridiculously small army anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Well we, the US are still in Afghanistan as well…and we, the US STILL has more troops than any other member of NATO there. We are also supplying the majority of the logistics to Afghanistan.
I don’t see how the US screwing up and wandering off to Iraq absolves NATO or the Euro’s from anything. Again…is NATO only able to do anything if the US does? If Afghanistan is/was important then it is. If not, then not. If it IS…well, then it seems to me that NATO should have picked up the slack somewhat. If they would not or could not…well, there you go.
As for the Netherlands commitment of troops…you do what you can. I was under the impression that each member state in the EU contributed to a common defense that was, at least in theory, supposed to be viable. I’m not knocking the Netherlands contribution…I’m more looking at the contributions of the larger and more militarily powerful member states who haven’t exactly gone all out.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
Well, first of all the situation doesn’t compare at all.
Hitler was a force taking over the world, Bin Laden is the leader of a small group of people that happened to perform a very succesful terrorist attack.
[/QUOTE]
Hitler was trying to take over EUROPE. It wasn’t really our fight until he made it our fight. It was YOUR fight. YOU, and your fellow Euro’s, set up the conditions that made Germany what it became during the war. The US didn’t have anything to do with it. WE had already gotten tangled up in what was purely your problem before.
But you are right…it is not a comparable situation. I think you vastly under rate world wide Muslim fanaticism and it’s impact on EUROPE, more so than the US. But whatever floats your boat…maybe they will just leave you alone. Probably a bit easier to contemplate that in the Netherlands than if you lived in, say, Spain.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
And by the way, fuck you for only including the UK.
[/QUOTE]
They are the only country with a substantial contribution. Again, I’m not busting on your country (Netherlands) so much as the OTHER larger, more militarily powerful nations in NATO. IIRC, the UK has more force in Afghanistan than the rest combined…and also supplies more of the logistics support than the rest combined.
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
A lot of European countries have a presence in Afghanistan, although basically they don’t have any obligation after Mr. Bush said that catching Bin Laden wasn’t important anymore.
[/QUOTE]
I see. So, if ‘Mr. Bush’ says something you take his lead? That’s…interesting. If Bush thinks catching Bin Laden is important than it is…but when he says it isn’t (something afaik he never did btw), then it lets the Euro’s off the hook. I’m guessing because they can’t see the importance on their own and were just going along with the US? Or…something?
[QUOTE=Scoundrel Swanswater]
We are staying over there to try and rebuild the country after the chaos left by the US (bombing and running).
[/QUOTE]
Really? How’s that working out for you?
(I assume it’s pointless to once again point out that the US still has the largest contribution of troops and logistics into Afghanistan, even though it’s a low priority for us…right? It’s obvious you aren’t getting the meaning of that…or what it says about your fine words about staying to rebuild while previously saying you were ready to tuck tail because Mr. Bush said Bin Laden isn’t important anymore).
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well we, the US are still in Afghanistan as well…and we, the US STILL has more troops than any other member of NATO there. We are also supplying the majority of the logistics to Afghanistan.
I don’t see how the US screwing up and wandering off to Iraq absolves NATO or the Euro’s from anything. Again…is NATO only able to do anything if the US does? If Afghanistan is/was important then it is. If not, then not. If it IS…well, then it seems to me that NATO should have picked up the slack somewhat. If they would not or could not…well, there you go.
[/QUOTE]
I think the only reason NATO got involved is because of the debt we still carry for the US involvement in WWII.
So, yes, NATO was only there to help/appease the US, not because we all of a sudden decided Afghanistan would be a nice place to hang out.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
As for the Netherlands commitment of troops…you do what you can. I was under the impression that each member state in the EU contributed to a common defense that was, at least in theory, supposed to be viable. I’m not knocking the Netherlands contribution…I’m more looking at the contributions of the larger and more militarily powerful member states who haven’t exactly gone all out.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Hitler was trying to take over EUROPE. It wasn’t really our fight until he made it our fight. It was YOUR fight. YOU, and your fellow Euro’s, set up the conditions that made Germany what it became during the war. The US didn’t have anything to do with it. WE had already gotten tangled up in what was purely your problem before.
But you are right…it is not a comparable situation. I think you vastly under rate world wide Muslim fanaticism and it’s impact on EUROPE, more so than the US. But whatever floats your boat…maybe they will just leave you alone. Probably a bit easier to contemplate that in the Netherlands than if you lived in, say, Spain.
[/QUOTE]
I think you overestimate the impact of terrorism.
Look at the way the US reacted to 9/11 and the way Spain reacted to the bombing of the trains.
While the US immediately did what the terrorists actually wanted (react in a completely hysterical way, suspending rights left and right and basically enforcing the whole paradigm of muslim/non-muslim) Spain just more or less ignored it.
The only way the terrorists win is if we let them divide us like this.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
I see. So, if ‘Mr. Bush’ says something you take his lead? That’s…interesting. If Bush thinks catching Bin Laden is important than it is…but when he says it isn’t (something afaik he never did btw), then it lets the Euro’s off the hook. I’m guessing because they can’t see the importance on their own and were just going along with the US? Or…something?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I distinctly remember an interview with Mr. Bush where he said Bin-Laden was marginalised and just not that important anymore.
Then why the hell should we care?
He never did anything to me.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Really? How’s that working out for you?
(I assume it’s pointless to once again point out that the US still has the largest contribution of troops and logistics into Afghanistan, even though it’s a low priority for us…right? It’s obvious you aren’t getting the meaning of that…or what it says about your fine words about staying to rebuild while previously saying you were ready to tuck tail because Mr. Bush said Bin Laden isn’t important anymore).
-XT
[/QUOTE]
That’s working out allright for us.
We have had some losses, but are generally pretty much loved by the local population.
Maybe because we are there as a peace-force trying to build schools, hospitals and the like.
Not to catch so-called terrorists and take them to a secret base to be tortured (oh, sorry, intensively interviewed).