Looks like the Ambassador is better at diplomatic speech than the general is:
That ain’t “victory”, folks.
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.
Hey, slightly different subject: do you believe the surge in Iraq “worked” and that the US won the war in Iraq?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
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…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578351963393889782.html
Karzai Says Taliban ‘in Service to America’
Offered without comment, unless “WTF?” is a comment.
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.
After 11 years of war, Americans are tired. We just want it to be over.
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.
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.
Does any of this seem familiar?
Just add us to the list.
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.
Hey, civilian deaths decreased in 2012 for the first time!
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:
I started this thread with this question:
The first response did not address the question.
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:
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.
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.
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.
And then John Mace continues thinking in WWII Conventional Warfare Terms.
To which I replied:
And then John Mace replies by telling me what I want to use.
To which I replied:
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?
And then Ravenman comes in and says **‘bolding a point’ **must mean that I am angry and ranting.
What is going on here?
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).
Hey, NFBW: We don’t need you to recap our posts. Just tell us what your position is.