I thought Afghanistan was the "good war"???

[Huh?]

I didn't say the Middle East had been stable...I said Saddam was a stabilizing buffer which goes to why as poppy Bush wrote..."While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

There is a reason that the "guideline" was set as it was and had we not agreed we would not have been allowed to base on Saudi soil to launch the first attack.

As to "thinking persons know better"...what fool in their right mind think we are going to go in and stabilize a region that has been in a state of flux since before the time of Christ?

Look at what we have now...a couple of governments that are no more friendly to us than what we had, in fact, quite the opposite...unless you happen to appreciate Muslim rule of law in Iraq and a major increase in opium production in Afghanistan.

You're off to a good start, but maybe on the wrong track. The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

For some, history seems to start at the point in time the most convenient to their current talking point. You've just challenged the temporal comfort zone of many.

Which has been my point all along...and who was it before the Shaw?...before that?...before that?

How did the Brits do around the turn of the last century...

 

[Huh?]

How about the one with China we....er...you have been losing for 15 years.?
It doesn't take glassy eyed, undereducated, brainwashed, adolescents with heavy equipment, to wage war.
China knew they couldn't overpower the Mpyre militarily so they took all your manufacturing and customers and loaned you money so you idiots could live like rock stars while buying all their junk to clutter your borrowed houses with.
Check Mate.
Now the Middle Beast dumps the dollar for oil and you now have Yugoslavia with empty McMansions.
Also known as the former Amurkastan.

OOOOo now you're mad ! Run over to Walmart and get you a nice flag to wave. The Chinese ones are cheaper and you get a 5% discount if you use VISA.

Idiocracy.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

~ Albert Einstein

 

[Si modo]

You're off to a good start, but maybe on the wrong track. The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

For some, history seems to start at the point in time the most convenient to their current talking point. You've just challenged the temporal comfort zone of many.

Which has been my point all along...and who was it before the Shaw?...before that?...before that?

How did the Brits do around the turn of the last century...

So your original talking point is pointless. Got it.

 

[Huh?]

For some, history seems to start at the point in time the most convenient to their current talking point. You've just challenged the temporal comfort zone of many.

Which has been my point all along...and who was it before the Shaw?...before that?...before that?

How did the Brits do around the turn of the last century...

So your talking point is pointless. Got it.

Ah, perhaps to a degree...but only due to that which I was addressing.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Look at this blanket statement about the entire country of Afghanistan.

LMFAO. Ground recon is useless in Afghanistan.

Since when is every single part of Afghanistan exactly the same, every situation exactly the same, every single piece of terrain exactly the same in ANY part of the world. It's a good thing the person who posted this rubbish about recon missions isn't in charge. It's single minded thinking and blanket statement mentality like this that gets troops in trouble. Perhaps in the specific area this poster was in, a completely barren landscape with ZERO coverout to 5 miles surrounded by goat herds, was not conducive to recon ops. I can understand that but to make a completely ludicrous statement like "recon is useless in Afghanistan" is quite disingenuous.

and then...read this stuff:

Like when a goat herder's child stepped over the top of a claymore mine and into my OP.

How did a "goat herder's child" get into your "OP" completely undetected???!!! Who set up that Claymore??!!

Now you wonder why I question the validity of your claims???!!! With statements like that!!!???



Seriously now...who are you trying to kid? Are you saying you..and troops put under your leadership .... failed to detect a child walking around in your minefield? UNTIL HE WAS INSIDE YOUR "OP"???!!! What does that say about your competence as a leader?

Look...if you served..that's great...thanks for the service and no disrespect was intended towards my fellow vets but don't come in here and post bullshit that makes the Army look like the Keystone Cops.

and order your lapdogs to mind their own business

Patek,
I don't think GTH was implying that all of Afghanistan is useless for recon ops. He's guilty of not wording it properly, that is all. The areas that he mentioned to me that he served in, makes recon ops a *****. Particularly the Orgun area that is not so affectionately referred to as the "box of rocks". And that's exactly what it is. It's like operating in a box of rocks. If you're not on top of said rocks, you're fucked, because that's where the "goat herders" tend to be. They've got a birds eye view, and if they're not friendly's, you are thereby compromised.
Think of the University of Texas tower sniper a few years back. That's is the situation we basically face in those regions.
As far as the child stepping over the Claymore goes, that shit happens all the time. Chances are, it was set up as command detonated. Meaning it would be detonated by remote, by perimiter security personnel. The ROE set for security are very strict. You don't just turn children into swiss cheese because they wandered into your area of ops. If it was set for VID, victim initiated detonation, and it failed to engage, it was most likely improperly set, or it was a dud. Or, the child was too light in weight to set off the vibration sensor. But then, I doubt it was set that way due to ROE set forth. I'm sure GTH can clarify.
Anyhow buddy, CARRY ON!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'll ignore the rest of your insults, because it's blatantly obvious that you are clueless about infantry tactics. Thus, your speculation on what we should have done is useless. You've now had two people with experience tell you that ground recon in Afghanistan is useless due to soft compromise. You can chose to believe that or not. You can even look at what happened to the SEALs during Operation Redwing if you want further proof.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....the bold type statement of this clown is quite telling....look at what he said earlier and he says I am "clueless" about infantry tactics..

Like when a goat herder's child stepped over the top of a claymore mine and into my OP.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...this soldier let a child waltz around in his minefield and the child completely escaped detection until he was inside the "OP".
You're an incompetent leader at best and a totally inept buffoon who had no purpose being placed in charge of combat troops at worst.

and then cite a wikipedia source as your "expertise" for making a blanket statement about "LMAO recon is useless in Afghanistan"!!?? wiki???!!! I thought your were the consummate expert on all things related to infantry tactics!!!
and then you cite an operation (Red Wing) as your source of expertise!!??

...maybe you were in Afghanistan...Recon platoon leader? Are you saying your a Lieutenant?? And you only served 3 years?
Hmmmmmm Look at this.

In support of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 25th Infantry Division was called to arms in July 2003 to prepare for deployment in 2004. This deployment would mark the first time the division deployed as a whole outside the Pacific region.

First deployment outside of the USA in 2004???!!

and then we have this statement from geaux...

11A, 3rd BDE 25th ID, July 2002-July 2005

The 3rd Brigade deployed to Afghanistan in March of 2004. They returned in June of 2005. So your 3 year tour in 25thID turns out to be 13 months of duty in Afghanistan.......1 combat tour in Afghanistan and a wikipedia source are your basis for saying that recon is useless in the entire country of Afghanistan. I find your citing a SEAL Op extremely insulting considering the fact that you don't deserve to walk on the same planet as any SEAL who ever existed.
If you are a Lieutenant ......why only 3 years in the Army?....were you kicked out for letting a child defeat your perimeter defenses and penetrate your "OP"? Who was the fricken dumb ass who set that Claymore up? Who was on watch? What does this say about your effectiveness as a leader of combat troops?

Like when a goat herder's child stepped over the top of a claymore mine and into my OP.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Yeah, that's right. The Middle East has been stable all the while Hussein was in power. Although a popular talking point, thinking persons know better.

I didn't say the Middle East had been stable...I said Saddam was a stabilizing buffer...

Yeah, we get that... the problem is that President Hussein (of Iraq, not the US) was not a stabilizing buffer... he was the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East.

He's dead now... hung by the people which he brutalized; and what is in his place is a democratically elected government; a government which has a CHANCE to govern a free Iraqi people.

It's theirs to keep and theirs to lose... PERIOD.

All we did was to provide the chance.

If they cannot govern themselves, then we will conquer them in earnest... and maybe give Iraq to Israel... to do with as it pleases. Or perhaps will just use it as the worlds largest Pig farm... "IRAQ! The Other white meat..."

That we presently suffer internal subversion at the highest levels is neither here nor there... such will fall to its inevitable ends and when that's done, Americans will return ot the business of leading a free world.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Considering that we managed to replace a government in Iraq that, as pathetic as it was actually, was a stabilizing buffer in the region with one that more closely is allied with our bigger enemy in the region...granted, it took a couple of wars over about a decade and a half to do it...looks like we've failed miserably.

Uh... No... We haven't failed anywhere.

That our efforts to provide for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, some means to exist as a free people, may be rejected... is not a failure of ours; nor can a valid argument for such be made.

We did not go there to guarantee anything to anyone; except that the regimes which were in power at the onset would be destroyed... and on that guarantee we have performed 100%.

The choice is theirs to make; clearly there is disagreement within their culture... with some adhering to the opportunity and some rejecting it; as there are in our culture.

What must inevitably come of it, is that the war will turn inward in the US... where we, the Americans, will destroy you, the anti-Americans... the humanist Left in your entirety and then busy ourselves destroying your anti-American allies around the world.

Think in terms of shadows of glass...

Once you idiots start the war... it will not end until there is no desire on the part of anyone to so much as utter a Leftist notion; and leftism will be extinct; and that will simply be: that.

Oh bullshit...go in search of more windmills.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

(See how easy it is kids? Simply reject false premises and they'll fold like a $2.00 tent, in fairly short order.)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Simply reject false premises and they'll fold like a $2.00 tent

Or you could just invent complete BS premises - pretend that they are true - and when people tire of your self-congratulatory BS you can pat yourself on the back for your "genius" and claim victory as YOU do.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The best stabilizing Force in the Middle East was The Shah of Iran. We should have supported Him. We will be paying for Carter's Blunder for years to come.

HUH?

The shah was a US puppet and murderous dictator. The US deposed the duly elected Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and installed the scumbag as a prime minister. for shame.

There is no such thing as a duly-elected communist... Where such exists it is the duty of every free sovereign to destroy it; as the very presence of communism is a clear and present threat to the Rights of free people.

And this is how the above noted communist was dispatched... and his successor, the Shah came to power... governing over a prosperous Iran until Jimma Cawta failed to support him; where upon Islamic Jihad was born... which lead directly to 9-11 and the US GWOT.

Nothing particularly complicated about it; except where you rationalize that a people have a right to be communists if they choose; whereupon you establish yourself as the advocate of tyranny and suffer the certainty of diametrically oppossing 'means-end' calaculation, where you also lay claim to the advocacy of freedom.

 

[Si modo]

Which has been my point all along...and who was it before the Shaw?...before that?...before that?

How did the Brits do around the turn of the last century...

So your talking point is pointless. Got it.

Ah, perhaps to a degree...but only due to that which I was addressing.

Your original talking point, that Hussein was some sort of stabilizing factor, is indeed convenient to your addressing your original talking point.

Stay away from snow and mud; your habit of spinning your wheels will get you nowhere real quick.

 

[nodoginnafight]

brutal dictatorships are often effective at maintaining domestic order as was Hussein - but imho he was a provocatur in the region.
But it was a huge mistake to make getting him a bigger priority than getting Bin Laden and Al Qaida post 9/11.

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah, we get that... the problem is that President Hussein (of Iraq, not the US) was not a stabilizing buffer... he was the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East..

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

Why?

.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yeah, we get that... the problem is that President Hussein (of Iraq, not the US) was not a stabilizing buffer... he was the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East..

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

Why?

.

Well, we could start with the Invasion of Kuwait.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Was" is the key word in all this. Afghanistan was "The Good War" only when Hopey Changey thought that rhetoric would get him more votes in the election. Now it's suddenly "Victory is not the goal in Afghanistan." This President should be ashamed of himself for the way he has treated our kids over there. He just seems to be far too busy promoting himself through endless cheap Media Dog & Pony Shows to actually care about our kids over there. He has simply been AWOL when it comes to helping our kids out. It's all just very sad in the end.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Simply reject false premises and they'll fold like a $2.00 tent

Or you could just invent complete BS premises - pretend that they are true - and when people tire of your self-congratulatory BS you can pat yourself on the back for your "genius" and claim victory as YOU do.

Well I could... but that would tend to indicate that I am a leftist; and that's fairly unlikely...

For me; I prefer to advance cogent, intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned argument... where upon I sit and wait for Leftist (such as yourself) to advance any number of fallacious responses... appealing to one distraction or another; in this case the flaccid combination of appealing to pity; implying that such is not fair and to what you 'feel' is a popularly held position by your impotant comrades... the purpose of which is to change the subject.

As fails go, this was a BEAUTY!

Naturally, you'll want to deny such... but under no circumstances; and at no time will you be able to speak to ANY specific issue; to which you overtly failed to refer; preferring instead, the vague implications common to the lowest common denominator.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well I could... but that would tend to indicate that I am a leftist;

Ah because only leftists use such tactics????????
If you are no leftist - as you claim - then you are a living contradiction to your own claim.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

brutal dictatorships are often effective at maintaining domestic order as was Hussein - but imho he was a provocatur in the region.
But it was a huge mistake to make getting him a bigger priority than getting Bin Laden and Al Qaida post 9/11.

Oh...you mean like his shooting at American aircraft DAILY FOR 10 YEARS...that kind of provocatuer?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I mean all sorts of instances - why?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yeah, we get that... the problem is that President Hussein (of Iraq, not the US) was not a stabilizing buffer... he was the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East..

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?

Why?

.

Well gee, let's see... He was a direct and overt supporter and proponent of international Islamic terrorism... having provided direct funding, intelligence and diplomatic support for such; having used Islamic terrorism to attack his enemies by proxy for two decades; attacks which more often than not, targeted US interests and/or allies... killing hundreds of Americans in the process.

There's the whole Gulf War thing...

His decades long violation of the ceasefire the US mercifully extended...