Afghan fighting was "fruitless and expensive".

[Mindful]

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive

 

[gtopa1]

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive

By 2005 the Taliban was defeated and the drug lords ruled. I wonder if they still do?

Greg

 

[Mindful]

Eight Lessons we won't learn fromAfghanistan.

1. Never invade Afghanistan
This was Britain’s fourth war in Afghanistan – and really the lesson should have been learned after the first one in 1842 when at least 16,000 British servicemen, women, children were butchered, froze to death, or were captured on the ignominious retreat from Kabul.

The point about the Afghans – and if the British imperial experience didn’t remind us of this, the more recent Soviet one should have done – is that war is their national sport and they will always win in the end. As the Taliban famously boast: “You have the watches. We have the time.”

2. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.


Eight lessons we won 8217 t learn from Afghanistan 8230 James Delingpole

 

[member]

"afghan fighting was fruitless and expensive..."

who's surprised:







it's been hard for them -- the afghani's -- to 'adapt' -- or get used to living in he 21st century....they still scoop out food from their bowls with their fingers.........that's how osama liked to do it --- plus, those who scoop, are the ones in charge of the whole country.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Not for the corporations who sold the US military everything they used during combat operations. Was very fruitful indeed. But then, that's how war works now, it's a business.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive

The so-called Afghan war was never a war. Afghanistan was just like VietNam and Iraq. Since the early 60's, American has not fought a war as war. We will "cut n run" from Afghanistan just like did in VietNam and Iraq. After many lives lost, both military and civilian, and countries destroyed and torn apart, we have a habit of walking away with absolutely nothing accomplished. We spend astronomical sums of money, leave multi-$Billions in equipment behind, bury tens of thousands of our young men and women in uniform, and just casually pick up our marbles and go home. All for what? The U.S. government should be ashamed, and held accountable for the lives lost and the destruction of nations. America has lost respect around the world. We are no longer feared, and are laughed at by those that once respected us.

Beginning with VietNam, we considered war as diplomacy, diplomatic engagements, and basically police actions. Our soldiers were told to only fire their weapons if they were fired upon first. As we all know now, diplomacy failed, and countries were returned to basically pre-war status. While our brave men and women of the armed forces were being killed and wounded, we shelved untold $Billions in weaponry, technology, and advanced military defense systems. We allowed our soldiers to fight basically as soldiers fought in WWII, and kept highly advance weapons and systems on shelves collecting dust. In reality, the U.S. government has blood on its hands, and is directly responsible for the destruction of property, and in some cases, whole cities. The big question is "what did we accomplish that made it worth the lives and other cost"? As an American, an ex-Marine ( 1967 - 1970 ), and a concerned citizen, I am ashamed of what we've done while calling our actions war. War should be fought as war, nothing less. If one can find a reason to go to war, then one can find a reason to fight all out war. Lives have value, and diplomacy doesn't replace lives.

 

[Mindful]

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive

The so-called Afghan war was never a war. Afghanistan was just like VietNam and Iraq. Since the early 60's, American has not fought a war as war. We will "cut n run" from Afghanistan just like did in VietNam and Iraq. After many lives lost, both military and civilian, and countries destroyed and torn apart, we have a habit of walking away with absolutely nothing accomplished. We spend astronomical sums of money, leave multi-$Billions in equipment behind, bury tens of thousands of our young men and women in uniform, and just casually pick up our marbles and go home. All for what? The U.S. government should be ashamed, and held accountable for the lives lost and the destruction of nations. America has lost respect around the world. We are no longer feared, and are laughed at by those that once respected us.

Beginning with VietNam, we considered war as diplomacy, diplomatic engagements, and basically police actions. Our soldiers were told to only fire their weapons if they were fired upon first. As we all know now, diplomacy failed, and countries were returned to basically pre-war status. While our brave men and women of the armed forces were being killed and wounded, we shelved untold $Billions in weaponry, technology, and advanced military defense systems. We allowed our soldiers to fight basically as soldiers fought in WWII, and kept highly advance weapons and systems on shelves collecting dust. In reality, the U.S. government has blood on its hands, and is directly responsible for the destruction of property, and in some cases, whole cities. The big question is "what did we accomplish that made it worth the lives and other cost"? As an American, an ex-Marine ( 1967 - 1970 ), and a concerned citizen, I am ashamed of what we've done while calling our actions war. War should be fought as war, nothing less. If one can find a reason to go to war, then one can find a reason to fight all out war. Lives have value, and diplomacy doesn't replace lives.

Wasn't there stuff going on with the French before the Americans? Maybe you can bring me up to speed with that. There is always some sort of historical context. Nothing starts in a vacuum.

The French are known for leaving a mess behind them.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive

The so-called Afghan war was never a war. Afghanistan was just like VietNam and Iraq. Since the early 60's, American has not fought a war as war. We will "cut n run" from Afghanistan just like did in VietNam and Iraq. After many lives lost, both military and civilian, and countries destroyed and torn apart, we have a habit of walking away with absolutely nothing accomplished. We spend astronomical sums of money, leave multi-$Billions in equipment behind, bury tens of thousands of our young men and women in uniform, and just casually pick up our marbles and go home. All for what? The U.S. government should be ashamed, and held accountable for the lives lost and the destruction of nations. America has lost respect around the world. We are no longer feared, and are laughed at by those that once respected us.

Beginning with VietNam, we considered war as diplomacy, diplomatic engagements, and basically police actions. Our soldiers were told to only fire their weapons if they were fired upon first. As we all know now, diplomacy failed, and countries were returned to basically pre-war status. While our brave men and women of the armed forces were being killed and wounded, we shelved untold $Billions in weaponry, technology, and advanced military defense systems. We allowed our soldiers to fight basically as soldiers fought in WWII, and kept highly advance weapons and systems on shelves collecting dust. In reality, the U.S. government has blood on its hands, and is directly responsible for the destruction of property, and in some cases, whole cities. The big question is "what did we accomplish that made it worth the lives and other cost"? As an American, an ex-Marine ( 1967 - 1970 ), and a concerned citizen, I am ashamed of what we've done while calling our actions war. War should be fought as war, nothing less. If one can find a reason to go to war, then one can find a reason to fight all out war. Lives have value, and diplomacy doesn't replace lives.

Wasn't there stuff going on with the French before the Americans? Maybe you can bring me up to speed with that. There is always some sort of historical context. Nothing starts in a vacuum.

The French are known for leaving a mess behind them.

I'm sure others engaged in wars, or attempted to before we entered those countries. You have to remember that the Middle East has been in turmoil for centuries. I'd have to check, but I believe the Middle East has had continuous unrest for at least a couple of thousand years. But, the history shouldn't dictate nor justify what we do in that region. Also, speculation, whether justified or not, has implied that we entered the Middle East due to their rich oil reserves and opportunities for American companies to gain an advantage on the energy front. Many have speculated as to why we continue to go to war under the claims of freedom and democracy, when in reality, our motives are usually based on greed and providing tremendous wealth opportunities for defense contractors and others. War is a money maker for some, while very costly for others. History of other countries entering other nations for various reasons, and engaging in war, can be readily researched. But, our focus should be on the senseless invasion of other countries under the lies and pretense of freedom and democracy. Where have we established democracy, and ensured freedom? We don't even have freedom and democracy here in our own country.

We send our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die, all in the name of freedom and democracy, when in reality, they have neither here in their own country. Go figure. War, as we know it today, is not war as war should be. Fighting on diplomatic fronts while soldiers are dying on the battle field is not war. We sacrifice lives while playing politics and making some very wealthy due to war. Our beneficial accomplishments generated through so-called wars, concerning VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are nil, zero, zilch. We lost 60,000 lives in VietNam for what? We lost over 5,000 lives in Iraq for what? And, how many lives have we lost so far in Afghanistan, and all for naught? Justification? There is none. Is VietNam better off? Is Iraq better off? And, what about Afghanistan, better off? Have we made enemies? Yes. Have we lost the respect from our allies? Yes. Are we safer and more secure here in America? No, not at all.

 

[Mindful]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

I don't know. Sorry. I'd have to do some research in order to answer that. I'm not a history scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure it could be researched on the internet.

 

[Mindful]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

I don't know. Sorry. I'd have to do some research in order to answer that. I'm not a history scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure it could be researched on the internet.

If you're interested, I'll post a link. Don't want to impose.

 

[Desperado]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

American Isolationism might have worked if we actually had a President that would have backed that policy. Instead FDR wanted US involvement in the War in Europe.
Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
A warning in the paper even predicted the attack so how could Washington not know?

 

[rdean]

It's not fruitless. Right Wing Americans have made a LOT of money from Iraq and Afghanistan. So what if a few thousand Americans died? Right? Wasn't it worth it to make the friends of Cheney and Bush rich?

 

[longknife]

Not for the corporations who sold the US military everything they used during combat operations. Was very fruitful indeed. But then, that's how war works now, it's a business.

War has always been about business. Someone always provides the arms and supplies armies need in their activities. From the earliest times until now, nothing has changed.

Surprisingly, with advanced availability of information, the corruption has decreased a bit because the crooks can no longer get away with it in secret.

 

[longknife]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

After the farce of the Treaty of Versailles, the USA left the world scene and left it up to Britain and France to determine the world status. Their colonialism also allowed for subjugation of entire peoples in the form of impossible and illogical boundaries.

American "isolationism" had nothing to do with Japan attacking the US. It was a matter of $$$$$ - as always

 

[Mindful]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

After the farce of the Treaty of Versailles, the USA left the world scene and left it up to Britain and France to determine the world status. Their colonialism also allowed for subjugation of entire peoples in the form of impossible and illogical boundaries.

American "isolationism" had nothing to do with Japan attacking the US. It was a matter of $$$$$ - as always

I didn't say it did. I was pointing out that America was still dragged into stuff, despite trying to keep out of it.

 

[Menerva Lindsen]

You are absolutely right. Afghanistan was not even a war. It was like a shameful campaign to serve the purposes of the BIG BUSINESS. We sent our forces to fight with terrorism. However Taliban claimed a victory in December 2014. We tried to stop drug cartels in Afghanistan but production of heroin increased. I agree It's a good comparison with Vietnam.

 

[bianco]

You are absolutely right. Afghanistan was not even a war. It was like a shameful campaign to serve the purposes of the BIG BUSINESS. We sent our forces to fight with terrorism. However Taliban claimed a victory in December 2014. We tried to stop drug cartels in Afghanistan but production of heroin increased. I agree It's a good comparison with Vietnam.

Bin Laden was killed, then turned into fish food.
Maybe not possible except for the war in Afghanistan.

Seems to me that no one really tried to stop heroin production in Afghanistan...the poppies were swaying in the breeze year after year after year..."the people's only source of income".

If there has to be a next time...all the "Taliban strongholds" should be simply turned into ash.
This wandering around the dustbowl that is Afghanistan trying to shoot the Taliban terrorists one at a time is totally ridiculous.

 

[bianco]

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?

After the farce of the Treaty of Versailles, the USA left the world scene and left it up to Britain and France to determine the world status. Their colonialism also allowed for subjugation of entire peoples in the form of impossible and illogical boundaries.

American "isolationism" had nothing to do with Japan attacking the US. It was a matter of $$$$$ - as always

I didn't say it did. I was pointing out that America was still dragged into stuff, despite trying to keep out of it.

Sooner or later America was going to be dragged in WW2 one way or another.
When Japan, Germany, Italy etc...now US'/Allies' best friends...LOL...had finished with Europe they would've gone after America at home.
German U boats were already lurking around US waters?

 

[Rambunctious]

I see some of you have finally realized that the President that most of you voted for has lost this war....purposely. If this war is going poorly you need to look at the American leadership over the last 7 years. Right?