# US General uses "V" word in Afghan War - Only 4 US Combat Deaths since Jan 1. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554 "2013-03-10T14:23:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/21 "2013-03-10T19:46:01Z")
Looks like the Ambassador is better at diplomatic speech than the general is: > [@](#): > > [US Ambassador: Afghanistan chapter not ‘closed’ yet](http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239710-us-ambassador-afghanistan-chapter-not-closed-yet?lite) > > KABUL – As Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrives in Afghanistan to take a look at America’s longest war, he will hear U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan James Cunningham’s unvarnished assessment: “I think we’re doing pretty well.” > > “We have big challenges to meet, with security and economic development and governance,” Cunningham said in an interview ahead of Hagel’s visit. “But the good news is we’re making progress and the Afghans are making progress." > > In typical diplomatic fashion, Cunningham spoke carefully about some of those “big challenges.” He conceded that explosions of violence, especially so-called “green on green attacks” (incidents where Afghans attack Afghans working with NATO forces) and “green on blue attacks” (when Afghan security forces attack their U.S. or NATO counterparts) continue unabated. > > \ > > “We’re not going to be able to write ‘closed’ to this,” Cunningham said. “And say, ‘OK, we’re done in Afghanistan.’ Those books can’t be closed; they can be diminished…they can be better controlled." That ain’t “victory”, folks. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/22 "2013-03-10T20:04:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Victory is winning the war, not just winning some battles. Call me when the other side surrenders. We’re leaving because we have to, not because we’ve won. -#017 Today, 03:32 PM reply to #015 How about I call you when the military and diplomatic objective is met? That is to leave Afghanistan that is not governed by the Taliban as it was at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil. If you can only think in terms of conventional warfare such as WWII then let’s just acknowledge that. The rest of the world has moved on figuring out that this is not a war between nations with uniformed armies on each side. At the rate it is going, the ‘other side’ won’t be able to surrender because they will be either captured or dead… or surrendered. Between now and the end of 2014 there will be many more Taliban leaders taken out including those who think they can ‘wait us out’ in the lawless regions of Pakiston. The guy just appointed to become CIA Director has a policy that is dealing with those Taliban who think they can run Afghanistan from the lawless regions of Pakistan. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/23 "2013-03-10T20:07:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > We have the outgoing US Commander bringing up the “V” word upon his departure. > > Who here might agree with what General Allen is quoted saying below? Hey, slightly different subject: do you believe the surge in Iraq “worked” and that the US won the war in Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/24 "2013-03-10T20:22:46Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It would be great if John Mace had cited the entire report: #016 Today, 03:02 PM This is the one that was cited, “ThisTaliban attack trends: Never mind.” What I meant was that John Mace excluded the citation of one major statement in the report that changed the meaning of the statistics that were in fact cited to make it sound as if the war was being lost according to the stats and the ISAF tried to distort the facts and then cover it up. However this was, from the same report that John Mace cited, an it very clearly explains why the background of the stats that John Mace chose to display. And that is that they no longer reflect the reality on the ground right now in Afghanistan because the Taliban have been pushed outside of populated areas. > [@](#): > > \*BIG DEAL “Additionally, we have come to realize that a simple tally of (attacks) is not the most complete measure of the campaign’s progress,” he said. **"At a time when more than 80 percent of the (attacks) are happening in areas where less than 20 percent of Afghans live,** this single facet of the campaign is not particularly accurate in describing the complete effect of the insurgency’s violence on the people of Afghanistan." > > \*\*Taliban insurgents have been pushed out of many population centers \*\*and have failed to regain territory they held before the surge of U.S. troops in 2010. That is progress, and it was never said that it is over. So will John Mace address the “BIG DEAL” that he overlooked or will we just have to move on… and let this little disinformation bygone, be a bygone. Thanks to the Administrator for pointing out the rule and for leaving my bolded red statements in place. That got my point across. And I’d like to see John Mace’s response to that particular point. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/25 "2013-03-10T20:33:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How about I call you when the military and diplomatic objective is met? That is to leave Afghanistan that is not governed by the Taliban as it was at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil. > > If you can only think in terms of conventional warfare such as WWII then let’s just acknowledge that. The rest of the world has moved on figuring out that this is not a war between nations with uniformed armies on each side. > > At the rate it is going, the ‘other side’ won’t be able to surrender because they will be either captured or dead… or surrendered. > > Between now and the end of 2014 there will be many more Taliban leaders taken out including those who think they can ‘wait us out’ in the lawless regions of Pakiston. > The guy just appointed to become CIA Director has a policy that is dealing with those Taliban who think they can run Afghanistan from the lawless regions of Pakistan. Eh. You’re the one who wants to use terms like “victory”, which is when you win. The best we can hope for is an uneasy stalemate. Besides, the idea that the Taliban is some well defined group or that there is only one insurgency is to be stuck in a WWII mindset. This is still a tribal society, and anyone either fed up with Karzai and his corrupt regime or simply wants to promote his own tribal interests can become a “Taliban” or other insurgent at any time. There is not some well defined number of “bad guys” and all you have to go is get rid of them. New ones pop up to replace the old ones. This is not an us vs them situation. It’s a civil war with all sorts of fault lines. The real objective was to oust al Qaeda, which was done years ago. Only thing is, they just pop up somewhere else. Who need Afghanistan when you’ve got the tribal regions of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, maybe Libya and all sorts of other countries in Africa. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/26 "2013-03-10T20:46:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Victory is winning the war, not just winning some battles. Call me when the other side surrenders. We’re leaving because we have to, not because we’ve won. I’m not sure why they have to surrender. Our goal was to remove the Taliban from power and keep Afghanistan from being a haven for international terrorists. Maybe you can’t formally win without a surrender, but I think winning is still possible without it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/27 "2013-03-10T21:07:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey, slightly different subject: do you believe the surge in Iraq “worked” and that the US won the war in Iraq? -#023 Today, 04:07 PMreply to #001 The Surge in Iraq to add 20,000 combat troops or so to the 140,000 troops that were already there was a political move by the Bush Administration more than anything else. The reason I say that is because by the time the first surge troops began to arrive in May 2007, the so called Anbar Awakening had already quelled most of the violence going on in the Sunni warlord controlled regions which was the scene of heavy fighting prior to the summer of 2007. The roots of the Anbar Awakening predated the SURGE by several years. Al Qaeda overplayed its hand among the Sunnis by trying to ban smoking, drinking and other taboos and Al Qaeda started messing with their women in ways that were not appreciated. So long before Petraeus came up with the surge, there were US Military Officers unofficially going around Bush Admin policy to cut deals with the warlords in exhange for help in exterminating al qaeda which came in after Iraq was so insanely invaded in March 2003, Only 4,000 of the 20,000 SURGE Troops were destined for Anbar. I don’t know if they ever ended up serving there. I’d like to know if they did. Now the Surge Troops that did arrive in Baghdad did help reduce violence some, but that too was more of other conditions that took place around the same time as the Surge Troops arrival. Mainly \*\*Muqtada al Sadr \*\*had declared a ceasefire on all Coalition Forces and on other SHiite and Sunnis that had somehow been able to continue living in Baghdad and the surround areas. There was much fighting through the summer of 2007 and to the Summer of 2008 as I recall, but most of that was Iraqi Forces and US Forces cleaning up outlaw militias that did not stop the Shiite on Sunni genocide and did not follow Muqtada’s orders to ceasefire. \*\*So all in all the Surge of 2007 coincided with the already establishied reduction in violence among Sunnis in the Anbar regions, and with the finishing touches of Shiite on Sunni genocide \*\*which drove many Sunnis out of Baghdad.. to a point where one US Military Officer remarked, in the Washington Post, I beleive, that There was nobody left to kill… as a reason for the slowdown but no end in violence. As to your second part of your question, did we win in Iraq? **NO.** There can be no WIN because the military objective in Iraq was clearly and unequivically to separate the Iraq Regime’s dictator from stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destructuion that were supposedly being hidden from UN inspectors at the time of the invasion. **There were no WMD in Iraq, and therefore there can be NO CASE FOR VICTORY**. A lot of people were killed, wounded, displaced and a lot of money was wasted. Anyone who thinks we achieved a victory when the purpose of the start of hostiliites was all wrong and based upon lies, is insane in my mind. Did we achieve some kind of best outcome for such a terrible unecessary atrocity against the people of Iraq and of our own troops being sent to fight a war that needed not happen. There is some relevant arguments to be made that the outcome could have been a lot worse and even more disruptive and deadly. \*\*Getting out \*\*was a victory of sorts… about the only way you can label it that. And there is the part that the Iraqis are buying Abrams Tanks and F16 fighters from us and not the Russians and the French… Over $13 billion in arms sales, Iraq’s oil is converted to cash and converted to jobs and profits in US Corporations. Was the 4484 US solders killed and 40,000+ wounded worth a $13 Billion arms sale paid for with Iraq’s oil money? No. But it is a reality that exists… And I tend to leave that part of it at that. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/28 "2013-03-10T21:21:37Z")
Nothing to do with the thread topic, but I would like to say that using different colours, caps and bold fonts makes posts more difficult for me to parse, not less. Your mileage clearly does vary, but I’m pretty sure most of the SDMB is with me on this. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/29 "2013-03-10T21:22:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Eh. You’re the one who wants to use terms like “victory”, which is when you win. The best we can hope for is an uneasy stalemate. -#025 Today, 04:33 PM reply t0 #022 I am? I merely asked if anyone here agrees with what the Good General said, and pointed out that the ANA and ANP are in front and 400,000 strong and taking the fight to the Taliban in most cases which shows up in the number of combat fatalities by the US military this year. I do wonder why the US news media does not acknowledge the reduction in combat deaths to our troops… perhaps they will soon. When combat deaths for our troops in Iraq came down after the surge… my God.. The surge worked the Surge worked the US compliant news media was all praise and glory for Bush and Petraeus… Althought violence for Iraqis did not slow down for a while and is still a big problem in the post US invasion recovery. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/30 "2013-03-10T21:24:59Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Nothing to do with the thread topic, but I would like to say that using different colours, caps and bold fonts makes posts more difficult for me to parse, not less. Your mileage clearly does vary, but I’m pretty sure most of the SDMB is with me on this. I am trying to please all here… with regard to posting style. and perhaps some day I will be able to … I’m working on it. That considered, I’d really like to see comments from more people on the subject… I’d like to see positions taken, bring some facts… and solide reasoning etc… and defend those positions… and tear up mine… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/31 "2013-03-10T21:33:09Z")
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578351963393889782.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578351963393889782.html) **Karzai Says Taliban ‘in Service to America’** > [@](#): > > Afghanistan’s fraying ties with the U.S. hit a new low on Sunday, as President Hamid Karzai said before meeting the new U.S. defense secretary that the Taliban kill Afghan civilians “in the service of America.” > > Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is visiting Kabul to discuss ways of ending America’s longest foreign war. On Saturday, Mr. Hagel’s first full day in Afghanistan, Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 18 people outside the Afghan Ministry of Defense in Kabul and in the eastern province of Khost. > > In a televised speech Sunday, the Afghan president said the U.S. doesn’t really see the Taliban as an enemy, doesn’t want to leave the country after the coalition’s mandate ends at the end of 2014, and is engaged in negotiations with Taliban leaders behind his back… Offered without comment, unless “WTF?” is a comment. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/32 "2013-03-10T22:39:13Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am? I merely asked if anyone here agrees with what the Good General said, and pointed out that the ANA and ANP are in front and 400,000 strong and taking the fight to the Taliban in most cases which shows up in the number of combat fatalities by the US military this year. Well, you are arguing with everyone who disagrees with the general, so is it any surprise that we think you agree with him? If you don’t, why don’t you tell us. > [@](#): > > I do wonder why the US news media does not acknowledge the reduction in combat deaths to our troops… perhaps they will soon. > When combat deaths for our troops in Iraq came down after the surge… my God.. The surge worked the Surge worked the US compliant news media was all praise and glory for Bush and Petraeus… Althought violence for Iraqis did not slow down for a while and is still a big problem in the post US invasion recovery. After 11 years of war, Americans are tired. [We just want it to be over.](http://pollingreport.com/afghan.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/33 "2013-03-10T22:42:28Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am trying to please all here… with regard to posting style. and perhaps some day I will be able to … I’m working on it. > > That considered, I’d really like to see comments from more people on the subject… I’d like to see positions taken, bring some facts… and solide reasoning etc… and defend those positions… and tear up mine… I can’t tell you if agree with General Allen or not. Your arguments, although gussied up with colors and font sizes, come across as rants, and it is hard for me to tell what your point is… other than you’re angry. For the record, I don’t think we’re closing in on victory in Afghanistan. We’re closing in on the end. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/34 "2013-03-10T23:13:47Z")
You want to know what my thoughts are on there being “only” 5 American deaths in Afghanistan? That’s 5 too many. We should have exited long ago. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/35 "2013-03-10T23:16:04Z")
[Does any of this seem familiar?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#January_1987_.E2.80.93_February_1989:_Withdrawal) Just add us to the list. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2013, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/36 "2013-03-10T23:18:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578351963393889782.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578351963393889782.html) > > **Karzai Says Taliban ‘in Service to America’** > > Offered without comment, unless “WTF?” is a comment. Yeah, but he probably didn’t take his meds that day. Or maybe that was one of the days when he did take his meds. Hard to tell. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/37 "2013-03-11T00:51:46Z")
Hey, [civilian deaths decreased in 2012 for the first time!](http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-afghan-civilian-deaths-drop-20130219,0,5199102.story) 2,754 in 2012 vs 3,100 in 2011 (estimating the latter number from the graph). Progress, no? No. The main reason civilian deaths declines was that Coalition forces killed fewer civilians. If you calculate the number of insurgent caused civilian deaths based on the percentages given in that article, the numbers are: 2011: 2,232 civilian deaths 2012: 2,230 civilian deaths As for the Taliban being pushed into marginal areas, I’m not impressed: > [@](#): > > But the report said targeted killings – attacks against government employees, tribal and religious leaders and Afghans involved in peace efforts – resulted in more than twice as many deaths and injuries in 2012, in part because Taliban-led insurgents increased their use of homemade bombs that spread damage over a wider area. > > U.N. officials said they were particularly disturbed by a seven-fold increase in casualties among government workers, including the murders of the two top officials in the women’s affairs department in Laghman province, east of Kabul. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/38 "2013-03-11T02:39:03Z")
I started this thread with this question: > [@](#): > > Who here might agree with what General Allen is quoted saying below? > > “Afghan forces (are) defending Afghan people and enabling the government of this country to serve its citizens,” he said. “This is victory. This is what winning looks like.” -Reuters; [Guardian.co.uk](http://Guardian.co.uk), Sunday 10 February 2013 10.13 EST; - cited by Ntfldbw #001 03-10-2013 10:23 AM 069a1023. The first response did not address the question. > [@](#): > > “You’re shitting me, right? US combat casualties in Vietnam were reaching all time lows in 1972 because we were leaving and had ceased conducting aggressive combat operations and were handing the war over to the ARVN. Do I need to remind you what happened to the Republic of Vietnam over the next three years? Or what happened to the Soviet backed Afghan government after they left?” - Dissonance #002 03-10-2013 11:04 AM 069a1104. So I “argued” with Dissonance and laid out mostly some major differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan as war zones. As of this writing I have not received a reply from Dissonance on the matter. Then the third response comes from John Mace: > [@](#): > > Yep, victory: {CITE A} U.S. defense chief’s Afghan news conference canceled over security fears; KABUL (Reuters) and {CITE B} Taliban attack trends: Never mind; WASHINGTON (AP) {End of CITES} I’d hate to see what defeat looks like. . -John Mace #003 03-10-2013 11:17 AM 069a1117 I don’t see what the point was here, since the quote from General John Allen in no way said that things like this were not happening or would happen. I did ‘argue’ that John Mace DID NOT cite the explanation of the data that came with the report, that he was using to falsely leave the impression that no progress has been made, and thus mocking General Allen’s words. The fifth post from John Mace is interesting in that it shows that John knows what General Allen’s idea of victory is all about and explains the difference between Vietnam’s exit strategy and the one currently underway in AfPAK. > [@](#): > > “… whereas we’ll be leaving some troops in Afghanistan indefinitely and it’s quite possible we could “re-engage” if the Taliban and other opposition forces threaten Kabul.” -John Mace #005 03-10-2013 11:28 AM 069a1128. The Taliban must be highly degraded and not recovering for that to be a possibility. I would not argue with John Mace at all on this point. In light of his previous quote, John Mace goes back to a more pessimistic view of the General’s Remarks. > [@](#): > > “I think it was very impolitic, at best, and reckless, at worst, for that general to be throwing around the term “victory”. “ -John Mace #008 03-10-2013 12:26 PM 069p1226 John Mace and CoolHandCox had an exchange, and I tend to agree with CoolHAndCox’s post #012. With that I questioned why you changed the fact pattern of what General Allen actually said by going into a definition of victory that applies more to a WWII situation than a counterinsurgency operation. > [@](#): > > “Victory”, in war, is when you conquer your enemy and they surrender. Not seeing that happening here. –John Mace #011 Today, 01:18 PM reply to #010 069p0118 > > You are speaking in generalities that mostly apply to conventional warfare. AfPAK is a counter-insurgency and General Allen was quite specific as to the fact that he was talking about the war that he just spent over a year running. Here it is again. (-Ntfldbw #015 03-10-2013 02:35 PM 069p0235) > > {Cite} “Afghan forces (are) defending Afghan people and enabling the government of this country to serve its citizens,” he said. “This is victory. This is what winning looks like.” {CITE} > > So is it your belief that Afghan forces are not defending the Afghan People much more so than when they didn’t exist in the numbers and the training that they exist today, and when the Taliban had unchallenged control of vast swaths of Afghanistan about five years ago? -Ntfldbw #015 03-10-2013 02:35 PM 069p0235. And then John Mace continues thinking in WWII Conventional Warfare Terms. > [@](#): > > “Victory is winning the war, not just winning some battles. Call me when the other side surrenders. We’re leaving because we have to, not because we’ve won.” John Mace #017 03-10-2013 03:32 PM 069p0332. To which I replied: > [@](#): > > How about I call you when the military and diplomatic objective is met? That is to leave Afghanistan that is not governed by the Taliban as it was at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil. > > If you can only think in terms of conventional warfare such as WWII then let’s just acknowledge that. > > The rest of the world has moved on figuring out that this is not a war between nations with uniformed armies on each side. -Ntfldbw #022 03-10-2013 04:04 PM 069p0404. And then John Mace replies by telling me what I want to use. > [@](#): > > “Eh. You’re the one who wants to use terms like “victory”, which is when you win. The best we can hope for is an uneasy stalemate.” - John Mace #025 03-10-2013 04:33 PM 069p0433. To which I replied: > [@](#): > > “I am? I merely asked if anyone here agrees with what the Good General said, and pointed out that the ANA and ANP are in front and 400,000 strong and taking the fight to the Taliban in most cases which shows up in the number of combat fatalities by the US military this year.” -Ntfldbw #029 03-10-2013 05:22 PM 069p0522 And then where does Post #039 come from? I argued some things but not over disagreement with what General Allen said. Pointing out that John Mace is arguing a different term for victory than what General Allen said is not aguing in favor or against what General Allen said, it is trying to be factual and keep to the point. Which is do you agree or disagree with what General Allen ACTUALLY said? > [@](#): > > “Well, you are arguing with everyone who disagrees with the general, so is it any surprise that we think you agree with him? If you don’t, why don’t you tell us.” - John Mace #032 03-10-2013 06:39 PM 069p0639 And then Ravenman comes in and says \*\*‘bolding a point’ \*\*must mean that I am angry and ranting. What is going on here? > [@](#): > > “I can’t tell you if agree with General Allen or not. Your arguments, although gussied up with colors and font sizes, come across as rants, and it is hard for me to tell what your point is… other than you’re angry.” -Ravenman #033 03-10-2013 06:42 PM 069p0642. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/39 "2013-03-11T03:53:35Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > In NAM we faced not only a non-uniformed guerilla insurgenc, but we opposed a Regualy Army (ARVN ) that maintained its supplies and and direction and authority from the North Vietnamese Government. Nitpicking, but ARVN was the Army of the Republic of Vietnam - ie the South Vietnamese regular army. The regular army we opposed was the Vietnam People’s Army - aka VPA or PAVN (People’s Army of Vietnam) or NVA (North Vietnamese Army). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554/40 "2013-03-11T03:57:47Z")
Hey, **NFBW** : We don’t need you to recap our posts. Just tell us what your position is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-general-uses-v-word-in-afghan-war-only-4-us-combat-deaths-since-jan-1/652554.md?page=3)