Who thinks airpower means anything besides shooting bullets and dropping bombs?
Me. Airpower is certainly not the ideal tool to have in this sort of fight. Since we have it, people are tempted to use it after all, and it is too blunt and blind for most tasks.
We need a corps of development people operating close behind a Western military shield until that shield can be replaced by local police. Then the developers themselves would be replaced by local people get fat off Western contracts. Then the contracts themselves will go away and some coed at the University of Kabul can write a paper proving the US effort was not needed as the Afghanis modernized themselves.
We can argue about how to do what must be done once we agree upon what must be done. We seem stuck at this step.
The West will win the GWOT only with the support of airpower, in terms of the logistics and resupply capability it brings to the table delivering and dropping all manner of goods including everything from humanitarian aid and building supplies to drinking water as well as ferrying troops and people around the country including captured terrorists and local government officials working on the solution.
You know - all that stuff you take for granted. :smack:
Apparently you haven’t seen some of the latest precision-guided munitions we employ.
No you’re not. You’ve accused those that disagree with your 50 year plan for the reconstruction of Afghanistan of racism, enjoying their blood diamonds, and asking who’s side their on? (Why Al Qaeda’s, of course.) The blood diamond one just takes the cake. I haven’t seen you calling for picking up the White Man’s Burden for a 50 year plan in Africa. I guess you must be sitting in your apathy enjoying your blood diamonds.
Well, I have been retired for a long, long time. I do recall the USAF used a smart bomb at Rio Hato, Panama. (The crater is still there.) It darn near killed a lot of kids who did not need killing. That would have cost us bad, very bad.
In this sort of fight we need (in my retired opinion) a mess of people. People make people-to-people contacts and from that we build friendship, trust and cooperation.
Airpower (Interdiction, CAS and Deep Strike) is really a labor-saving device, but this war calls for lots and lots of labor.
When did we invade Egypt, anyway?
Hey, I’m all for helping build schools and roads in poor countries. But have you noticed that every other right-winger who’s gung ho to stay in Afghanistan sneers at the idea of building roads and schools and sewage treatment plants in poor countries? And that they aren’t willing to pay one more cent in taxes to help build roads and schools and sewage treatment plants?
Here’s how it works. Afghanistan is going to have crappy corrupt government for, as you say, at least another 50 years. That’s how long we’ll have to occupy them according to you, right? How about this for a plan. We pull our troops out of Afghanistan, the Afghans fight amongst themselves until there’s a government that can maintain order, and then we ask that government, whoever they turn out to be, “Hey, you guys mind if we build some roads and schools and sewage treatment plants? We were totally going to to it back when we were occupying your country for ten years, but we were kind of busy with the bombing and shooting and…uh…”
See, in one plan we occupy Afghanistan for 50 years and build (not rebuild) the country from the ground up while the Talibs blow up half the stuff we build and we blow up the other half by accident. And after hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of dead Americans and God knows how many thousands of dead Afghans, we’ve got what? A crappy shithole of a country with a few schools and roads and sewage treatment plants.
Or, the other plan, leave the country, and once the civil war is over, we help them out. If the civil war continues for decades, well, that’s how long you think it’s going to go on WITH US THERE. This plan is, eventually somebody is going to be in charge of the country and we work to encourage civil etc and good whatever, just like we do in all the other Godforsaken shithole countries in the world that we aren’t occupying. It’s not like this second plan is going to magically turn Afghanistan into Switzerland any time soon, but get this, neither is your plan.
Compare and contrast the results in Vietnam. We cut and ran. The Communists took over, and shot a bunch of people. But at least the war was over. And after a few decades the country slowly recovered from the war, and now Vietnam is a normal crappy country. The worst happened, and it was better than continuing to fight a never-ending war that couldn’t be won.
You know why we have to keep fighting in Afghanistan? Why do the Talibs have such staying power? Because they are a popular movement. We can’t just shoot every Student and suddenly we win, because there are people who were kids when we invaded Aghanistan in 2001 who are joining the Taliban now. Why would they make such a choice after 10 years of occupation, if we were making progress after 10 years of occupation? If we still have kids joining the Talibs in 2011 and 10 years of occupation, what’s your plan to prevent the kid who was born in 2001 from joining the Talibs ten years from now in 2021?
Mind reading again?
The situation in Africa is rather different. First off, they have not allowed their territory to be used to attack the West. If an African state did, I would advocate much the same actions there as I do in Afghanistan.
Why are you people so concerned about skin color?
So you are a fortune teller? If a war was unwinnable, I would agree there is no point in fighting it. Please tell us how you know it is unwinnable and we can all go home.
Right-winger? Who? Me? I would suppose my views are not those of the right wing as I am not a member of it. That would, I think you would agree, be the most obvious explanation for the data, don’t you think?
A kid born in 2001 could be prevented from joining the Taliban by ensuring that group is further marginalized and discredited. Why would anyone want to wander around the hills with a rusty rifle when you can join the boy scouts and go to summer camp?
So? You yourself keep responding to people pointing out that Afghanistan Does Not Work That Way by asserting that the specifics of the local situation don’t matter.
Oddly enough, I would advocate the same actions toward such a hypothetical African state as I would advocate for Afghanistan in 2001 – kick their asses, overthrow the regime responsible, go home, keep an eye on the new boss and lather-rinse-repeat if he failed to learn the lesson (“don’t let our enemies use your territory as a base of operations”).
Emphasis added to illustrate why I now need to clean coffee off my monitor.
No, I’ve just been reading what’s you’ve been writing. You’ve written everything I’ve said, aside from spelling out the implication of siding with Al Qaeda when you ask whose side you’re on.
Funny, I seem to recall a place called Sudan.
:rolleyes: Classy. You respond to being called out for unfoundedly smearing people as racists by smearing me as one.
'56, it was in all the papers. Perhaps you were out of town.
But more seriously, the West did not have to use force because it used soft power. Trade, aid and education helped create a middle class that grew in strength and indignation. You saw the results on TV.
No, not classy. I refuse to let you drag your notions about race into this. If you do, I shall point it out to you.
I’ve said this twice now and I won’t bother repeating it a fourth time, but here goes try number three: Paul, the war is unwinnable unless we increase spending and troop levels. Nobody in the US - especially our current crop of politicians - wants to increase spending in a foreign country or increase taxes to pay for what we’re spending now. In fact, half the politicians in the US are trying desperately to cut important domestic spending such as social security and medicare.
So… this is magically going to work how, when it is more than evident that the “development people” working “behind a Western military shield” rather unsurprisingly get assimilated into a Occupation force of foreigners who have nothing but contempt for the Afghans, until of course they turn into chubby little Americans.
I heard you the first two times. I completely agree with you.
So we need to fix that. You with me?
Neither. We have barbaric thugs on one side, and a nation of amoral predators on the other. There are no “good guys” here.
They would likely have happened faster without our propping up of dictators, our destruction of democratic movements, our use and promotion of torture, and our general efforts to convince the people of the region that democracy is a synonym for anarchy and mass death.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: In reality what happens is that all the money would go to wealthy Westerners while the locals are used as slave labor.
That raises the point that the choice is not between correcting an evil or not correcting an evil (even if we assumed, against all evidence to date, that intervening in a situation such as Afghanistan would in fact correct evils). The choice is between correcting evils on the other side of the world and correcting evils at home.
[QUOTE=John Quincy Adams]
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. When do we storm Guantanamo Bay?