OCinBuffalo

Uh, yeah, and that will be the case whether will go get them, or not. It makes no difference. I am certain this is the conclusion Cheney arrived at 10 years ago. Only a fool would conclude otherwise. We see how all this "engagement and diplomacy" has worked. All the bowing and scraping has produced exactly 0 results. Which I knew would be the case. Yeah, Iran will stop being Iran if we talk to them ....this is why we can't let the far-left be in charge of things. They simply don't understand the material, or they pretend like they can wish Iran's nuke away, if they say "diplomacy" and click their heels enough times. The nightmare scenario, and I mean it, is: if we have to use tactical nukes on Iran, and that is more likely if we are only fighting on one front. Then everything goes out the window, and anybody can do anything. Nightmare, like I said. This is why I am for stabilizing our supply lines and doing this conventionally from 2 fronts, before they can put a real weapon in the field. It's either this...or...wait for an opportunity for the CIA to capitalize on public unrest in Iran... ...oh....wait.....that opportunity already came and went. :wallbash: Too bad we didn't have somebody who knows something about how bad war is in the White House, and would use any means to avoid it. Too bad we don't have somebody who knows anything about war or the military at all in the White House. If we did, they would have jumped all over that opportunity based on even the slightest chance that it would let us avoid war. There is nothing good about war at all. Nothing. But, that doesn't mean we can pretend like it doesn't exist or that there is no cause for it.

Actually, I saying WRT to the strategy Dick Cheney, not Bush, as a former, and excellent, Secretary of Defense, put in place: he knew what he was doing, and knew that it wouldn't matter if Obama/McCain got elected. There are too many logic traps to get out of either situation with ease, and major political consequences if it is tried. I don't think he is evil. I think: he knows we WILL have to use the military to remove the regime in Iran to get after the nukes. Cheney has been doing this for 40 years, and he knows a real enemy to fight a real war against when he sees one. You may not like it, I may not like it, but sooner or later, we are gonna have to go and get those nukes. We are lucky with North Korea because of China. Russia is not China, and they couldn't stop Iran even if they wanted to. That leaves, as usual, us, and nobody else but England, and maybe Canada this time.

You know, it's really that simple? Except this time, we live up to our treaties. We do this right, we could get the cost down to reasonable relatively easy. We get some local help, etc. It can be done is the point. Treat people like they want to be treated. You are in their country, respect their culture, but get your goals accomplished at the same time. It's either this or more of what we know won't work, and then cut and run. No amount of talking, "peace with honor" BS, will make the Afghanis interpret out leaving any other way than "they beat us". And now they have proof from God, once again that they are right, that God tested them as warriors and they passed, creating 10,000 9/11 attackers. Great.

See: Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are the true objectives of this campaign. You are acting like they are separate. They are not. That's just what the Democrats have been saying. They aren't smart enough to see what is really going on here. All of their screaming about Iraq has done a fine job of diverting attention from the ultimate goal = Iran. As Stalin said: useful idiots. It's just this time, they don't know who they were being used by. Remember the "I voted for it before I voted against it" thing? Most people interpreted that the wrong way. Also, remember which Democrats(mainly insiders, with seniority) voted for the Iraq war, they were being briefed on the big game plan. Seems strange that this could happen, with Obama being elected, etc. It's too late for that. They knew that there would be little anybody that followed could do. This was set in motion as a strategic deployment to go after Iran's nukes. And I doubt anything will stop it.

Re-read my post. I clearly spell out that Afghanis don't consider themselves a country several times. Failed? Hardly. I don't ignore my mention of it. I clearly state that while they have their own concerns, we do as well. There is no "let them do whatever", and have another 9/11. There is no, let them be infiltrated by Iran, or Pakistan, or Joe D-bagistan. Any solution must address these issues, period. Again, this is why I am saying that we need something that is congruent with their traditions of unifying in resistance of outsiders. We just need to step that up with support/training. Put it on steroids. I am not expecting to remove the influence of Pakistan/Iran. I am expecting to use the chiefs Parliament to determine a course, and deal with it. I am betting that most of the support from Iran is necessary due to village v village nonsense, drop the sheep and goats, you take away the need for much of the nonsense, and thereby take away the need for Iran. I want to addict them to American goats, just like we are addicted to oil. I want those rice bags to say USA, not Iran.

Oh, and btw, for those of you who haven't noticed: the reason we attacked Iraq right after Afghanistan is because we wanted to create the potential for a 2 front war for Iran, complete with a direct supply route to the sea(through Kuwait and Iraq), thereby cutting the # of Iranian troops we have to fight on either front in half. Look at the map again. Not sure if we could take their whole army on one front given that we could only get 2 Corps?(Tom probably knows better) in the Iraqi front while maintaining the initiative, but I am sure we can take half of it, given air and fire superiority. The above is the strategic plan, and was begun due to limited, and ONLY military options we will have if Iran develops nukes. B word all you want, but that's clearly the intention. We will lose a hell of lot less troops with this deployment. So, for all of you keeping score at home? Yes, Iraq/Afghanistan aren't even the real war. They are merely being taken for support. Iran will essentially be cut off because nobody on the rest of their borders will do a thing to help them. Least of all the Russians. We will be removing a problem regime for them, and replacing it with one that is just as likely to buy their weapons. Ok...that's the strategy, back to the tactics... I said the opinion of the chief is what counts. Opinions can be changed/bought/etc. Alexander would attack each village, and then sit down with the chief and negotiate. This is because he was a great believer in people, and had a great vision which he wanted to share with them. Allegory aside, it came down to finding out what the chief wanted, and giving him some of it, and promising more given ongoing loyalty, and, promising protection. Well, we can't do that, but, we can: 1. Fight the men of the village, win, and then sit down with the chief and give him the respect he deserves. I know that sounds weird, but it is what it is. Alexander had no problem sitting down with the chief and he was "the great". I don't think it's a big deal for one of our brigade commanders to do the same. Hell we could hire an actor to be "the Big General" they would never know Dress him up like Patton. 2. Convince the chief that if he joins the Parliament, he will get good things for himself and his people. In return he has to send men/supply whenever he is called. Basically the Feudal thing, and definitely link the chief's honor to participating in Parliament. He has given his word, after all. 3. NOT LEAVE until we have an honorable agreement, however long that takes. 4. Do something(I like a shooting contest, horse racing, something) where we bet on who will win. We get our snipers, our guys from Texas, whatever, to win the contest. We do something, man to man, and prove we are worthy of the chief's respect. I don't know if we could get into the marrying daughters thing.... 5. Accept the men that the chief will give us, and promise "the spoils" of attacking the next village. Um, those spoils provided by us farmers and dropped by air, not actually pillaged, which give the guys that win something to take home. Then, we repeat the process all over again. The chief gets a win, the guys get the stuff, we got the support of the village, time to move on. We promise to resolve any disputes between villages, with many goats and sheep, whatever, handed out to make everybody happy. 6. No taking women, that's the deal. No beating women. Leave the broads alone, and let them go to school, or no deal. 7. Let them keep their own local laws, but create an arbitration/appeal system that is appointed by the parliament. If a chief is not keeping his word, or is acting crazy, a jury of chiefs is appointed, the trial is held in the village, and its run like a court martial. If we do these basic things, the tactics win us the chiefs. We win the chiefs, we get the Parliament. We get the Parliament, we get our central government as necessary. We win the war. Every time there is a problem, we drop in the necessary sheep and goats, we buff up the chief in question, and he stays loyal. They will turn on the Taliban like mother in laws if their chiefs tell them. The chiefs can't do that unless they are sure we will protect them from Taliban, and always will. Its a symbiotic thing. People hold grudges for generations there. They have to know that if there is trouble then can at least count on our air to help them out, forever. Maybe if we get more developed countries to help out, like Pakistan and Turkey? Pause

Moving on... Clearly we believe in a Federal Government based on our founder's principles of a Republic. Getting the average Afghani to believe in a centralized government, with loyalty to the village replaced by loyalty to a province or country, is like getting me to become a Dolphins fan. It ain't gonna happen. Getting them to believe in Communism was even harder. We are talking about the ultimate decentralized system here. Imagine if you cared more about who your mayor was, than the President. These traditions are 1000s of years old, and we aren't going to change them, no matter how well the Special Forces political people do their jobs. But, we can't very well have a country, next to Iran, that can't act as a country when necessary. And, we also can't allow a country to be taken over by a bunch of lunatics every other year either. Finally, we can't allow a country to exist where parts of it is used to train terrorists, while other parts have no clue that is happening, and expect to hold the whole country accountable. Those of you talking about setting up faux democracies? The above paragraph is why we need some form of centralized command and control. No amount of attacking Bush removes the problems defined above. So stop. Its an ignorant POV, and it doesn't solve anything. So, we need something that is congruent with how the Afghans already operate, united against interlopers, but respectful of how the country actually operates. This is the problem defined, and, we use Alexander's tactics as the method. The goal, if I may be so bold, is NOT democracy as we know it. Rather we create a parliament of chiefs. Paused, etc.

By your leave, sir The average Afghan, hates the people in the village next door more than he will ever hate some foreign invader. If you read your Kipling, this usually has to do with pissing in the river upstream, or stealing. They will get together to stop the foreigners, and when the are done, go right back to fighting each other. Again, this not because they are crazy. It's simply a question of culture. Believe it or not, we do the same thing, but in different ways. The average Afghan must prove himself to the men of the village. In either single combat or stealing stuff, whatever shows he has balls. There is no greater proof of being ballsy than standing up to the American Army. So, that's why the initial hit and run war with the limited SF and Rangers was so effective. You didn't see any Americans, so you couldn't stand up to them. They were not prepared for our tactics, and that's why they lost so quick = they were frazzled. They expected to be fighting us, instead they were fighting the guys from a few villages away, who had the benefit of air power. The structure of the village is something we are familiar with, so I won't bother. It comes down to a chief. (Incidentally, this also remains true in Iraq, in terms of sheiks) Loyalty is given to a chief, period. The vast majority of Afghans, even the educated and worldly ones, still hold their village chief in high regard. It is ultimately his opinion of them that counts. pause for comment and to limit verboseness

Ahh, and that's why we don't use them. We use the real leaders, not the "made-for-tv" ones. But go ahead, this is fun, defending what I am not saying is my favorite

First of all its a question of basics. If you don't know the basics, there's no way you can be right, other than by dumb luck. So, you have learned one of the basics: your average soldier NEVER wants to fight anywhere, any time(and neither does his officers, btw). "Soldiers run on booze and bitching". You can't get them to walk 20 miles, without trying to get out of it. It's a game kinda. The officer's job, all the way through the chain up to the President, is to motivate that soldier, one way or the other. Another basic is: if I am going to motivate you, you have to have some idea what we are doing. No argument there, with them, or you, WRT the premise, or the argument. It's the conclusion that causes me the pain here. Saying we haven't defined goals is not the same as saying we can't define goals. Get me? Not even trying to define goals and simply running away is what I am arguing against. As Tom has said, Genghis Khan won there because he killed everything that moved. Assuming that strategy is off the table, and since, it didn't really work for the Russians, we have to go with the only other guy who was able to do some winning there: Alexander. The tribal culture has placed "the better man" above all. This was true long before Islam, and it continues today. Alexander was able to convince the average joe that he was the better man, and they loved him for it. Mostly because, he respected them enough to fight them man to man. It has to do with competition, being on the same field, etc. Hitting them from the air etc. is dishonorable in their view. It means we are weak. If we are weak, in their eyes, we can be defeated, and therefore, they are obligated to fight us. If they don't, then they are weak. This is culture. It may not make sense to us. But the warrior fighting 1v1 is still pretty much how they think. And they don't get out much. They are loyal to their little village, and have no real concept of "country". The question is: how do we apply Alexander's tactics in the modern world?(I know, but this is already "verbose" so I will stop and let you comment)

All of you: Nowhere did I say: 1. continue to fight with no war aims 2. the Army fighting an endless war is a good idea 3. the current strategies and tactics are effective 4. the other departments of the government don't have to a job to do, and do well, for these wars to end First and foremost, unbelievably, for an Army that prides itself on its command of history and ability to apply it, in both wars, we have ignored the history and culture of the people, enemy and friend alike. We chose to fight a European war in Iraq, and a South American war in Afghanistan. I have no idea why. Honestly. It doesn't make sense. If we simply cut and run, without giving our Army a chance to fight and win, if we NEVER give them any "goals" and just tell them to pack their gear and run, then we will do massive damage that will take years to repair and cost additional trillions. Now if you want to have a further discussion, please speak to what I am saying and not what I am not.

I only did it as an attempt at giving you half a clue. Certainly they aren't the same. Now come on, don't tell me you don't get that. I assume you are relatively smart. You didn't serve. You don't know, and that's that. Which question am I avoiding? EDIT: Oh, and I notice Darin hasn't auto-replied as you expected. Perhaps that's because he has served and knows a little something about unit effectiveness being based in part on unit cohesion?

Since I have really done this, and never done it on an XBOX? Your comments are disrespectful and ignorant. Now go back to your XBOX. This is about real life and real people trying to do a difficult job for very little reward. It is also about officers trying to keep their command populated with at least some people who know what they are doing. But go ahead and keep talking down to me...as if... Oh, and setting up faux democracies is the State Departments job, sometimes the CIAs, so please just stop. You might see some Special Forces to set up some initial relationships, but that's about it.

Then don't pretend like I don't know the answer. I feel I had a better plan on how to do Iraq. I feel the same way about Afghanistan. In both cases my plans were based on who the enemy was, culturally, but, were dependent on not trying to do this "on the cheap". We have spent 5x what we would have if we didn't start out trying to get away with this cheaply. I am sure it seems absurd, to somebody who has never been in that position. I can't imagine how hard it is now, with 2 full scale wars going on. That only makes my point. The Army anyway, will take 10 years to recover from "cut and run". Perhaps I should put it in terms of a law firm? Imagine your managing partner suddenly stops taking an interest in your firm's cases, and worse, refers your major ones to another firm. Word gets out that s/he's lost her edge, and isn't willing to do the big work anymore. Suddenly your junior lawyers start thinking they picked the wrong firm, and don't want to show up just to do the same old little disputes for crap fees, never mind make partner. So they start looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, your paralegals know that there's no way all of the education/advancement opportunities are dependent on you doing the big cases, and they see the same writing on the wall. The clerks and everybody else does whatever their boss is doing. You lose 60% of your potential new partners, and 80% of your paralegals in the first 2 years. How long and what kind of spending would it take, to restore your firm to its state just before your managing partner decided to have his/her nutty? Wouldn't it be better to get him/her to fight through it? Recommit? Spend some cash on your existing people and tell them that you are going to get through this and finish those big cases? Wouldn't that cost significantly less? Just trying to put things in your perspective...as best I can.

Well, I am not sure I can do that without being "verbose", so, it's up to you. If you want me to do my strategic planning thing, I will. If you want to cry about it being a long post, spare me.

You ever been in charge? Ever try to keep people in your command, instead of taking the private sector job that pays 4x as much? What do we have to work with? We can't talk $$$, we can't talk security, especially in war time, we can't talk about stability, especially when we are sure to be uprooting people every other year. That private sector job has every benefit we have, and no BS on the weekends. So what do we have? Confidence, appreciation for a job well done, and that feeling that you are on a winning team, the feeling that you are doing something right, and that everyone in your chain of command is committed to success... That's about it. Running away from a war that has seen people in your unit die kills all of those things...and now that company commander has exactly jack squat to work with. Why don't you go ahead and tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

I have no problem owning up to my share of the blame, if in fact I do have some(I think I am just trying to be the voice of adult, educated reason, amidst a sea of child-like, quick-fix, run away from our problems because we don't like them anymore, say anything as long as my team wins, phony, celebrity over substance, psycophants)....but I doubt anybody else will. But, that's because, I have honor, and they...don't. And, I am not the President. It's his job to set the agenda. If he wants the country to come together, then he needs to stop going after people, and paying off his friends. If he wants to continue to pick a fight with business, then I am here for him all day, and will smoke him like a cheap cigar.

It's clear you simply don't understand the military, military policy, or much to do with how to build an army that can win, and once you finally get there, how to keep it there. This is fine, not everybody does, and the understanding is certainly not for everyone, because you have to look at things in terms that most people don't find "comfortable". But, keep in mind, there is a giant difference between having an opinion, and having an informed opinion. Perhaps you think its easy to build a winning football team that will stay together for 10 years, and win every game you send them to play, with no losses, ever? Now take that team and make the free agent market 20 times more competitive, and, make the endorsement deals 20 times more lucrative, to the point that your best players can make a hell of a lot more money just doing that, and not ever playing football again....and you might come close to understanding. But, I still doubt you will. You don't understand what happened in Viet Nam either, so, again, for the sake of your comfort, if for no other reason, it's probably best for you to move on from talking about this.

Generals, by definition, don't get to use that "human" excuse. The training and the job is simply different. And you are right: the attitude and the environment come from the top. Setting a bad example for your troops is inexcusable. He had to go, military skill or not, you simply don't break rule #1. Now, if only we can get our President to stop setting a bad example...if not, he has to go in the next election. No friggin way. We cannot dishonor our dead and wounded by simply running away. Listen, you may not care about that, but I guarantee military people do. You sleep safe and sound at night because of them, and not because of "the law". "The law" only gets to be the law because they create the conditions for it to exist. Dishonoring them because you don't want to spend the money? That would weaken our military in ways I doubt you can imagine. Put it this way: all I ever heard about was the "Army of 70s" and how we weren't gonna be them. It took us ALL of the 80s, and all of that spending, just to get back to where our military wasn't a joke. Please, don't support Vietnam-ing the military all over again. That is folly. WRT your $$$ concerns? It will cost us 5x the $$ to re-recover from running away, than it will to win.

Yes, but it's OUR fault the country is so divisive. Just like it was OUR fault in the 70's when Jimmy Carter's economic policies failed.

Don't forget Alexander.

Everything you are talking about happened AFTER Gettysburg/Vicksburg. Before that, the Union couldn't win a major battle to save it's life. Lincoln kept demanding that his generals attack, even when it was militarily stupid, and, the incompetent generals he picked had no hope of carrying out those attacks. Sherman? You mean Grant's Western Commander? You mean the guy who didn't fight his way East until 1864? 3+ years after the war started? Same as above. Ever hear of J.E.B Stuart? Yes, there's nothing like supplying your army so well, that you are supplying the enemy too! What a fine example of logistical expertise. Bah, historians agree, Lincoln was simply a bad Commander in Chief. He appointed Grant Lieutenant General because he had no other choice. Meade was a dead stick who got lucky because of Chamberlain and Buford, and he had to kick him upstairs. He would never have appointed Grant otherwise. Here: Grant was #8.(can't believe they left out Vicksburg) This is America, usually you get 3 strikes, not 8. But, all that wasted time in the field did give us baseball...

This is retarded of course. Historically Tom is absolutely right. Lincoln's Commanders in Chief were only good at one thing: getting stuff named after them. Burnside got the Union crushed at Fredricksbug, and while Hooker was a ballsy guy, he was intellectually challenged and got the Union whipped at Chancellorsville. McClellan was a waste of space. They guy wouldn't attack unless he had amassed 5-1 numbers, and by the time he did, Lee was gone. Or worse, he would give terrible orders in massing his troops which would leave them exposed to being attacked by Lee. Lee did this on several occasions. You don't appoint a General who can't read a f'ing map. The Union had the largest army that couldn't fight, couldn't march and couldn't resupply, largely because of the incompetence of their generals, and the incompetence of the man who chose them to be generals in the first place = Lincoln. We all like to think of him as a great guy, and he was, but, he was also wrong about many things. For example: he fired his first Secretary of War for suggesting that black men be trained as...soldiers. Sorry, but those are the facts, whether you like them or not is, as it always is, irrelevant. Tom is also right about Meade. He benefited greatly due to the leadership and sacrifice of other men. But, Meade was a blue-blood from Philadelphia that knew how to take the credit. Without an infantry Colonel from Maine, and especially a innovative cavalry general from Illinois, Meade, who only got the job 3 days before, loses. Grant was hands down the best Commander Lincoln had, but he couldn't very well promote a supposed alcoholic dirt farmer above Meade. So, he did the only thing he could do: he kicked Meade upstairs, and then gave Grant all the power. And, I have no idea where the fascist thing comes from. Perhaps you are referring to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus? Link here It's helpful to actually know what you are talking about BEFORE you post. Now, you do.

There's historical precedent for that with both McClellan running against Lincoln, and, McCarthur running a whisper campaign against Truman, but losing badly in the primary. All this while still serving as General = bad, really bad. And, you can roll your eyes all you want but McCrystal resigning, and then running against Obama is as American as apple pie. In fact is the most American thing he could do. I would much rather see that than this talking smack in the press crap. Oh....and every single liberal tool on this board who gave you a hard time over Hillary? Retards. If we had listened to you, we wouldn't be dealing with half the crap we are right now. I remain convinced that Hillary is 5x the political leader compared to Barry and her husband.

IF that is the case, then he has broken rule #1 for a general officer. Hey, even McCarthur got fired for breaking the very same rule. This guy ain't even close to McCarthur. I understand why he did it. But, as I said, the concept of civilians leading the chain of command can't be compromised no matter what. If the President is acting ridiculous we have vehicles for that: impeachment, election. That's a matter for the civilians to decide, not the military. IF we ever let the military even come close to deciding, we are no better than some pissant third world country. Now, on the other hand, THESE civilians have consistently used dishonorable tactics like press leaks, grandstanding, and using their subordinates as asscovers. But, again, none of that justifies the military using those tactics. After all we have an honor code, and they don't.