OBL and Afghanistan

Father O Rielly · #1 by **Father O Rielly** » May 14, 2011 5:04 am

The death of OBL may provide an excuse for getting out of Afghanistan. As in Vietnam 40 years earlier, victory is unobtainable in Afghanistan, and withdrawal will at least save a few lives. Although symbolic only, OBL's death has provided some (temporary) political capitol for the US leadership. The US is probably shifted more to the right end of the political spectrum these days though, making any sort of of back-tracking impossible for a leader who wants to hang on to power. Will Obama seize the moment? Historian Gwynne Dyer expands:

....Since it is politically impossible for a U.S. president to acknowledge military defeat, for half a century the default method for extracting American troops from lost wars has been to “declare a victory and leave”. It was pioneered by Henry Kissinger in the Vietnam era, it worked for the junior Bush in Iraq, and Obama could use it to get out of Afghanistan.......

http://www.straight.com/article-391919/ ... fghanistan

zomgwtf · #2 by **zomgwtf** » May 14, 2011 6:51 am

"It worked for the JR Bush in Iraq"? Last time I saw Iraq got stomped on in a month. That's pathetic that anyone would be so anti-American to declare that they didn't win the war. Who cares if they didn't have WMD, their military got destroyed, their leader got hung, and the country basically belonged to USA.

"Victory" is unobtainable in Afghanistan? Says who? This is nothing like Vietnam.

susu.exp · #3 by **susu.exp** » May 14, 2011 10:13 am

zomgwtf wrote:"It worked for the JR Bush in Iraq"? Last time I saw Iraq got stomped on in a month. That's pathetic that anyone would be so anti-American to declare that they didn't win the war. Who cares if they didn't have WMD, their military got destroyed, their leader got hung, and the country basically belonged to USA.

Winning a war is obstaining the goals for which it was waged ("War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means." von Clausewitz). Some stated goals:
- Removing WMDs: Not archieved because there weren´t any.
- Removing Saddam Hussein: Archieved.
- Increasing stability in the region: Not archieved.
- Paying for the operation using the nationalized oil production: Not archieved.
- Turning Iraq into a western style democracy: Not archieved.
- Ending the occupation within a short time frame: Not archieved.
If the political goals for which a war are waged are not archieved, it´s not a victory. Some of these goals were never even in the reach, because they were mirages (no WMDs there) or because military action is not a means by which they can be archieved. At the same time the war had costs in terms of lives, money and international relations.

zomgwtf · #4 by **zomgwtf** » May 14, 2011 10:34 am

susu.exp wrote:
zomgwtf wrote:"It worked for the JR Bush in Iraq"? Last time I saw Iraq got stomped on in a month. That's pathetic that anyone would be so anti-American to declare that they didn't win the war. Who cares if they didn't have WMD, their military got destroyed, their leader got hung, and the country basically belonged to USA.

Winning a war is obstaining the goals for which it was waged ("War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means." von Clausewitz). Some stated goals:
- Removing WMDs: Not archieved because there weren´t any.
- Removing Saddam Hussein: Archieved.
- Increasing stability in the region: Not archieved.
- Paying for the operation using the nationalized oil production: Not archieved.
- Turning Iraq into a western style democracy: Not archieved.
- Ending the occupation within a short time frame: Not archieved.
If the political goals for which a war are waged are not archieved, it´s not a victory. Some of these goals were never even in the reach, because they were mirages (no WMDs there) or because military action is not a means by which they can be archieved. At the same time the war had costs in terms of lives, money and international relations.

Have you actually read On War by Clausewitz? The part where he speaks about war being the forcing of one states will upon another? It has nothing to do with 'goals' it has to do with going in there and making that state do what you want when you want. I'd say America achieved that pretty well until they started to give up on the area.

What happened in Iraq is known as Mission Creep. So to say it wasn't a victory based on the numerous goals and benchmarks that came out during the war is ridiculous. Also just to point out no one knows what the real goals of the war were. I'm highly skeptical they went to war to get WMDs. The fact of the matter is America went into Iraq and forced upon Iraq it's will. Iraq bent over and was conquered in a month. If this were an ancient war America would just claim the land for it's own, war concluded. That's not how it works in modern times though.

susu.exp · #5 by **susu.exp** » May 14, 2011 12:41 pm

zomgwtf wrote:Have you actually read On War by Clausewitz?

In parts.

zomgwtf wrote:The part where he speaks about war being the forcing of one states will upon another? It has nothing to do with 'goals' it has to do with going in there and making that state do what you want when you want. I'd say America achieved that pretty well until they started to give up on the area.

I disagree. Re-reading that section von Clausewitz he does discuss a pure notion of war (a "reinen Begriff des Krieges"), which does have 3 goals: Destroying the opposing forces, occupying the land and removing the will to resist of the populace. The pure war has only reached his objectives if there are no insurgencies any more. In Iraq we can agree that the US archieved the first two goals of the pure notion of war, but not the third.
However von Clausewitz then notes that this abstract notion is not generally applicable, as most wars are not waged to this extend and so he introduces a second notion that of the real war ("wirkliche(r) Krieg"). Von Clausewitz main point is that the 3 goals of abstract war are not neccessarily identical to those of real war and in some cases can be detrimental to them. He uses the 7 years war between Prussia and Austria as an example and notes that Friedrich would have destroyed the Prussian economy and military power if he had tried to remove Austria as a power. Friedrich did make it too costly for Austria to continue the war and in turn had a strong position in the peace talks. Had he persued the goal of subjugating Austria he would have failed in his objectives.

zomgwtf wrote:What happened in Iraq is known as Mission Creep. So to say it wasn't a victory based on the numerous goals and benchmarks that came out during the war is ridiculous.

Those goals were the stated goals prior to the war. 8 mission objectives were given for operation Iraqui freedom at the outset:
1. End the regime of Saddam Hussein.
2. Eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
3. Capture or drive out terrorists.
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks.
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity.
6. Secure Iraq's oil fields.
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions.
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.
These were not mission creep, but part of the original brief and made public by SOD Rumsfeld on March 21, 2003, a day after OIF had begun.

zomgwtf wrote:Also just to point out no one knows what the real goals of the war were. I'm highly skeptical they went to war to get WMDs. The fact of the matter is America went into Iraq and forced upon Iraq it's will. Iraq bent over and was conquered in a month. If this were an ancient war America would just claim the land for it's own, war concluded. That's not how it works in modern times though.

If this was an abstract war, the US would have managed to complete 2 of the 3 goals in short order, with the 3rd still not fully accomplished. But it is a real war, with different goals, most of them not archieved and some of the goals of abstract war may have been detrimental to the goals of the real war - disbandoning the Iraqi armed forces for instance serves the goal of abstract war to remove enemy combatants, but has likely hindered at least goal 7.

Peter Brown · #6 by **Peter Brown** » May 14, 2011 3:48 pm

Ok the main goal is achieved, OBL dead and gone.
However there is still the problem of the Taliban and AQ in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan, and Pakistan has nukes. I’m sure the US does not want to risk nukes going ‘missing’.

Father O Rielly · #7 by **Father O Rielly** » May 14, 2011 7:03 pm

The search for WMD was simply a ruse intented to give some sort of legitimacy to what was really just another version of the same geopolitical game played by many major powers over the years. There were no WMD, or at least none worth worrying about, and certainly not enough to justify a war and 100's of thousands dead.

The claim that it was an attempt to spread democracy and the rule of law in the region would be laughable, if the results were not so tragic. The US props up some of the most anti-democratic and draconian regimes if it suits their strategic aims, and indeed proved some aid to Hussien himself during the war with Iran.

The war was an attempt to gain some sort of leverage over a strategic part of the world, certainly from the Americans point of view, as the largest energy consumers on the planet. Installing a favorable regime, and building military bases there would, in the estimation of those that obsess on these things, provide a leg up on world events.

In the sense of getting a leg up, one could hardly say victory was achieved. The new regime in Iraq can't wait for the Americans to leave, which they are in the process of doing. Iraq has gone from one sort of instability to another. One might hope things will be marginally better in the future, although this is not assured. What is pretty certain is that the US has inflammed anti-western feelings in the region, and given terrorism a good recruiting tool. Iran is also probably in a more influencial position than before. The possibility of major, long term US bases in Iraq is now a political non-starter, given the events of the last few years. Overall, the US emerged considerably weakened by the Iraq adventure. The expenditure of 100's of billions in the wars has weakened further the financial posture of America in the world, a country in dyer need of looking after domestic issues, rather than spending more on the great game. It is also likely that any sort of similar intervention in the future will be a non-starter. After getting burned in Iraq and in Afghanistan, what US president would be able to launch anything remotely similar, and keep his job?

As for the military side of things, declaring a "victory" is nothing sort of nationalist hubris. The largest economy in the world poured billions, distorting its budget and denying domestic needs, into an enterprise to defeat a small, broken, third world country worn down by years of war, sanctions, and isolation. How else would it have come out?

The point is that it was an arrogant, ill-concieved, poorly planned, power play that blew up in the face of the US. They are now leaving, after a "decent interval", and paying off opposing militias to leave off until they can get out. They blew up a few tanks, but then lost control of the situation due to a lack of understanding of the deeper issues involved. Sounds a lot to me like Vietnam. It doesn't sound at all like victory.

Apollonius · #8 by **Apollonius** » May 16, 2011 4:00 am

It's doesn't matter what the stated goals for Iraq were.

All it was from the beginning was a war to break up a nationalized oil economy and rebuild it on the west's terms, in a more private model.

All the other excuses are bullshit.

Tyrannical · #9 by **Tyrannical** » May 16, 2011 4:23 am

No one is willing to do what it would take to win, but why bother?
A little isolationism and they can shake their angry fists in the air from thousands of miles away.

epepke · **#10** by **epepke** » May 16, 2011 5:10 am

susu.exp wrote:Those goals were the stated goals prior to the war. 8 mission objectives were given for operation

It doesn't matter the goals of the operation were. If the terms "war" and "winning" are to have any sensible meaning when used together, then the war was won when the government fell and Iraq's ability to wage war was stopper, even before Saddam Hussein was captured.

The occupation, on the other hand...

World War II ended in 1945, not in 1952.

masterstroke · **#11** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 5:25 am

Let's not forget the *real* lessons of 9/11, that foreign meddling has consequences and that multiculturalism does not work.

There would have been no need for a war in Afghanistan to begin with, had America not completely undermined regional stability (by supporting Israel and propping up secular despots), and tried to exert cultural hegemony (by pushing its decadent and nihilistic liberal values). Muslim holy warrior's are fighting a war of attrition that will never end, until America's influence in the Middle East has diminished which will only happen if America becomes isolationist, or if America is destroyed. I'm betting on the latter.

Its important also to recognize that 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., would never happen if the west didn't import Muslims in droves to our countries. While some may integrate, or indeed even contribute to Western society, they will always be outsiders, and so long as the West is preoccupied with meddling in their homelands, their will never be peace in ours.

masterstroke · **#12** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 5:26 am

*there

Ihavenofingerprints · **#13** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » May 16, 2011 5:33 am

masterstroke wrote:
Its important also to recognize that 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., would never happen if the west didn't import Muslims in droves to our countries. While some may integrate, or indeed even contribute to Western society, they will always be outsiders, and so long as the West is preoccupied with meddling in their homelands, their will never be peace in ours.

So halting immigration for X number of years would prevent 1 terror attack in the UK. Do you have any idea what that would do to their economy?

masterstroke · **#14** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 5:42 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
masterstroke wrote:
Its important also to recognize that 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., would never happen if the west didn't import Muslims in droves to our countries. While some may integrate, or indeed even contribute to Western society, they will always be outsiders, and so long as the West is preoccupied with meddling in their homelands, their will never be peace in ours.

So halting immigration for X number of years would prevent 1 terror attack in the UK. Do you have any idea what that would do to their economy?

As I recall Britain was once, by far, the most prosperous nation on Earth, strangely enough it didn't have any immigrants then either, fancy that. Surely you're not a shallow economic-reductionist, who would gladly replace one race with immigrants, gladly tear down historical buildings to build factories, and glady grossly overproduce goods, if it meant a few months or years of economic progress.

Life is more important than a few percentage growth in GDP, and multicultural societies are not stable or healthy societies, and never will be.

Ihavenofingerprints · **#15** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » May 16, 2011 5:47 am

masterstroke wrote:
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
masterstroke wrote:
Its important also to recognize that 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., would never happen if the west didn't import Muslims in droves to our countries. While some may integrate, or indeed even contribute to Western society, they will always be outsiders, and so long as the West is preoccupied with meddling in their homelands, their will never be peace in ours.

So halting immigration for X number of years would prevent 1 terror attack in the UK. Do you have any idea what that would do to their economy?

As I recall Britain was once, by far, the most prosperous nation on Earth, strangely enough it didn't have any immigrants then either, fancy that. Surely you're not a shallow economic-reductionist, who would gladly replace one race with immigrants, gladly tear down historical buildings to build factories, and glady grossly overproduce goods, if it meant a few months or years of economic progress.

Life is more important than a few percentage growth in GDP, and multicultural societies are not stable or healthy societies, and never will be.

Umm, how about a MASSIVE skill shortage. If you ship away all the immigrants, who is going to put their hand up to cover the vacant positions as a Westfield Cleaner? (Shopping centre cleaner)

I'm not sure where i have heard these arguments before, but they sound familiar. Oh thats right: http://www.bnp.org.uk/

masterstroke · **#16** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 5:56 am

Are you saying that there are not enough white people to fill all vacancies in a modern economy? Check out the bell curve, not all white people go to college, not all white people land cushy jobs, there are more than enough white people to fill any vacancies. Look at Japan, which is a world industrial leader and one of the most efficient countries in the world. Do they import immigrants in droves to do their dirty work? No, they do it themselves and they have prosperity, peace, security, and low crime rate to show for it.

I'm not British, so I'm not a member of the BNP. How about instead of attempting to slander my view's you debunk them.

masterstroke · **#17** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 6:03 am

BTW how will there be a skill shortage if there are less people? Britain cannot produce enough food to supply its own population, it is overcrowded and getting worse. Who will be hit hardest by Britain's overcrowding, the immigrants themselves who make the least amount of money and have to face the majority of the hit from increasing living expenses.

Anyway I don't like hijacking threads, so why don't we continue this conversation by PM?

Grimstad · **#18** by **Grimstad** » May 16, 2011 6:10 am

The Flight of Japan's Immigrant Workers

The aftermath of the earthquake suggests another weakness of the program: Some industries have come to depend on workers who are actively discouraged from putting down roots of any kind. When catastrophe occurs, Japan's trainee workers have little reason to stick around. And while they make up only a small fraction of the overall workforce, they're vital to certain parts of its agricultural, service, and manufacturing sectors. The Japan International Training Cooperation Organization (Jitco), the agency that administers the program, estimates that 70 percent or 80 percent of its more than 150,000 temporary workers have left the country since Mar. 11 and haven't come back.

The Japan Agricultural Cooperative Assn. chapter in Ibaraki, a prefecture at the southern end of the coastal area hit by the tsunami, reports that it lost 387 of its 1,591 foreign trainee workers through the end of March. Half the 1,500 foreign workers at the Hidakaya noodle shop chain went home after the earthquake. Recruit, the biggest manpower agency, is having trouble finding candidates for low-wage openings.

masterstroke · **#19** by **masterstroke** » May 16, 2011 6:14 am

Grimstad wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_18/b4226016338473.htm
The aftermath of the earthquake suggests another weakness of the program: Some industries have come to depend on workers who are actively discouraged from putting down roots of any kind. When catastrophe occurs, Japan's trainee workers have little reason to stick around. And while they make up only a small fraction of the overall workforce, they're vital to certain parts of its agricultural, service, and manufacturing sectors. The Japan International Training Cooperation Organization (Jitco), the agency that administers the program, estimates that 70 percent or 80 percent of its more than 150,000 temporary workers have left the country since Mar. 11 and haven't come back.

The Japan Agricultural Cooperative Assn. chapter in Ibaraki, a prefecture at the southern end of the coastal area hit by the tsunami, reports that it lost 387 of its 1,591 foreign trainee workers through the end of March. Half the 1,500 foreign workers at the Hidakaya noodle shop chain went home after the earthquake. Recruit, the biggest manpower agency, is having trouble finding candidates for low-wage openings.

Pfff. That's your argument, seriously, that a country which has just suffered total environmental devastation might not be able to utilize, in the short-term, workers which make up .1% of the population, you're going to have to try a lot better than that.

Grimstad · **#20** by **Grimstad** » May 16, 2011 6:22 am

masterstroke wrote:
Grimstad wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_18/b4226016338473.htm
The aftermath of the earthquake suggests another weakness of the program: Some industries have come to depend on workers who are actively discouraged from putting down roots of any kind. When catastrophe occurs, Japan's trainee workers have little reason to stick around. And while they make up only a small fraction of the overall workforce, they're vital to certain parts of its agricultural, service, and manufacturing sectors. The Japan International Training Cooperation Organization (Jitco), the agency that administers the program, estimates that 70 percent or 80 percent of its more than 150,000 temporary workers have left the country since Mar. 11 and haven't come back.

The Japan Agricultural Cooperative Assn. chapter in Ibaraki, a prefecture at the southern end of the coastal area hit by the tsunami, reports that it lost 387 of its 1,591 foreign trainee workers through the end of March. Half the 1,500 foreign workers at the Hidakaya noodle shop chain went home after the earthquake. Recruit, the biggest manpower agency, is having trouble finding candidates for low-wage openings.

Pfff. That's your argument, seriously, that a country which has just suffered total environmental devastation might not be able to utilize, in the short-term, workers which make up .1% of the population, you're going to have to try a lot better than that.

Even in a country that is 98% ethnic Japanese there are segments of it's industry that really heavily on immigrant labor because the citizens won't do the shit jobs without a 30%-50% increase in wages. You specifically said they don't need immigrant labor, they do it themselves.

OBL and Afghanistan

OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Re: OBL and Afghanistan

Who is online