How Do You Solve A Problem Like McCrystal?

[OCinBuffalo]

You've already failed. Afghanistan is a "country" only for extremely generous definitions of "country"; the people of that region themselves don't accept the idea of Afghanistan being a country (which is why the NWFP exists - no one on either side of the border actually recognizes the border.) Like I said: the Afghanistanis themselves won't accept it...because there's no unifying concept of "Afghanistan". You mention that above yourself...then go on to ignore your very mention of 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.

You also need to address the very considerable role of Pakistan - both culturally and governmentally - which means you also have to address Kashmir and India. And don't pretend you can to any degree create an Afghanistan independent of Iran, considering that the western half of Afghanistan (the Herat region) is solidly Shi'ite, and has been backed by Iran even in very recent history.

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.

[OCinBuffalo]

We already set up a faux democracy in Iraq.

 

The XBOX comment (XBOX 360, bu the way lol), was more about troops and citizens are dying for no reason, as the war has had no goal since the removal of the taliban. It has been a meaningless occupation. We should have helped them to set up a viable government- not a faux democracy, but anything that the citizens wanted. Then we should have left- that would have been victory. But our government got ADD and moved on to another administration in another country they didn't like (Iraq)

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.

[OCinBuffalo]

........sounds like that Kevin Costner movie, Dances with Wolves.

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.

[Adam]

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.

Yes, I know we are surrounding Iran and I also know it is a useless strategy. You talk about Obama like he is different from Bush. The country complained about Bush then reelected him- not that Mr. "I recite the Steelers" would have been any better.......

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, I know we are surrounding Iran and I also know it is a useless strategy. You talk about Obama like he is different from Bush. The country complained about Bush then reelected him- not that Mr. "I recite the Steelers" would have been any better.......

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.

[Adam]

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.

It won't work- these are nukes and Iran doesn't give a damn.....they would/will fire them on anybody

[OCinBuffalo]

It won't work- these are nukes and Iran doesn't give a damn.....they would/will fire them on anybody

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.

[Dan]

...

 

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

What you're essentially talking about here is an occupation. Take over the country village by village set up our own people and never leave. Because regardless of all te good will and happiness you create, once you leave that village, it goes right back to where it was.

[Adam]

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.

Dick Cheney was a blowhard and his administration was just as bad as the current one. Oh, hindsight is making Clinton and Reagan administrations actually look tolerable

[3rdnlng]

Dick Cheney was a blowhard and his administration was just as bad as the current one. Oh, hindsight is making Clinton and Reagan administrations actually look tolerable

 

 

You can say what you want about Cheney and I would probably disagree with you, but the one thing I will absolutely disagree with on is that he is a blowhard.

[OCinBuffalo]

What you're essentially talking about here is an occupation. Take over the country village by village set up our own people and never leave. Because regardless of all te good will and happiness you create, once you leave that village, it goes right back to where it was.

Alexander left all the villages, and went deep into India, which might as have well been another planet, for Pete's sake, and basically never came back. So no, your assertion is not correct. The power to keep Alexander's word was given to his "satrapes" governors. I am merely suggesting that we establish a new form of the satrapes system, whose power is derived from the Parliament, and managed by them as well.

 

Oh, and the satrapes system? Not Alexander's idea, they were already there. He was smart enough to integrate the principles of government he needed into the existing system of government. We can do the same damn thing, and why we didn't I will never, ever, know. It has needlessly cost us lives, and it's a shameful display of historical incompetence.

 

All we are doing is facilitating a deal with the chief, that either party, Parliament or Chief, can renegotiate every year/6 months. It's not an occupation, because he isn't making a deal to give us things, his deal is with the Parliament, and his promise is to support it's army with troops and supplies in case of war, to keep interlopers out of his territory, and call for help if he can't. We are mere facilitators. We can also serve as arbitrators.

 

We don't need a lot of people in the country to get this done, we do to start, but once we have proven ourselves, that's that. After the fact, we can be their air force, and until we train up theirs, and they fund theirs. We can also be the #1 purchaser of their poppies, effectively kill the heroin market, corner it, and sell wholesale to the world's pharma companies....for a nice tidy profit that helps pay for goats...along with denying a source of income to the terrorists....how? We buy ALL the poppies, but we don't pay cash. (that's called a: monopoly, for the progressives reading this )

 

We negotiate and barter...just like they do. Back to the American goats/sheep. Hopefully we get some Canadian/English sheep in the mix too...maybe the French will send some perfume? Germans can send some sausage....and on and on. For the price of basic consumer goods we can keep the whole country terror/drug free....provided we get what we want, consistent participation and support of the Chiefs Parliament.....

 

see how important goats are in this?

[OCinBuffalo]

Dick Cheney was a blowhard and his administration was just as bad as the current one. Oh, hindsight is making Clinton and Reagan administrations actually look tolerable

Blowhard? Not sure that's how I would describe him. How about? Machiavellian pragmatist? Or, absolute, winner take all, patriot? You can say what you want to disparage the guy(Haliburton!), but at least he is as sincere as they come, he believes in what he did as his duty to this country. Maybe he is wrong, that would certainly be nice, but I doubt it.

 

Maybe Obama will talk Iran's nukes away. It's not impossible, but, I will take any odds against it working.

[John Adams]

So in order to honor our fallen, in your opinion, we have to win over every chief like Alexander did and establish a government formed from the won-over chiefs. Which amounts to forming a country where there is currently none. And then, we have to do something to stop Iran, which either is or should be our ultimate goal.

 

Is that about right? I'm kind of a bottom line guy--this is your plan for how we win in Afghanistan right?

 

(See how I did that in 3 sentences BTW.)

[/dev/null]

So in order to honor our fallen, in your opinion, we have to win over every chief like Alexander did

 

And what evidence do you have that Alexander won over every chief? For that matter did the US win over every German and Japanese general after WWII?

 

You don't have to win them all. Just enough to maintain control

[John Adams]

And what evidence do you have that Alexander won over every chief? For that matter did the US win over every German and Japanese general after WWII?

 

You don't have to win them all. Just enough to maintain control

 

Not an important point of dispute. I was trying distill his 4 page missive down to its essence.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

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.

We are going to invade Iran?? Now that would be the mistake of mistakes, and for so many reasons.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

We are going to invade Iran?? Now that would be the mistake of mistakes, and for so many reasons.

 

Lets just sit on our hands and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon then...

[Alaska Darin]

Lets just sit on our hands and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon then...

Oooooh. Scary.

[Adam]

You can say what you want about Cheney and I would probably disagree with you, but the one thing I will absolutely disagree with on is that he is a blowhard.

Cheney is a great military strategist, very few would argue that, but he is a one-trick pony. If there isn't a war going on, he doesn't have much value- and that doesn't mean he can't mistakes.

 

Sometimes when you have a destabilized situation, like what is going on in the middle east, the best thing to do is let the warring factions continue their war- attacking could unify them against you. I don't know, maybe you view the civilian deaths as 'collateral damage' since its over there. Personally, I find that term to be very common among cowards- and I didn't say that you said that.

 

I think we would have done well to leave things alone. Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons to keep Iran in check. We should be nation building over here instead of over there- our infrastructure is already readying to collapse- without that, we are nothing.

[3rdnlng]

Cheney is a great military strategist, very few would argue that, but he is a one-trick pony. If there isn't a war going on, he doesn't have much value- and that doesn't mean he can't mistakes.

 

Sometimes when you have a destabilized situation, like what is going on in the middle east, the best thing to do is let the warring factions continue their war- attacking could unify them against you. I don't know, maybe you view the civilian deaths as 'collateral damage' since its over there. Personally, I find that term to be very common among cowards- and I didn't say that you said that.

 

I think we would have done well to leave things alone. Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons to keep Iran in check. We should be nation building over here instead of over there- our infrastructure is already readying to collapse- without that, we are nothing.

 

I wouldn't say he is a one-trick pony. He's been a Congressman, Secretary of Defense and VP. If you've ever actually listened to a speech of his you would find him level headed and factual. All I stated was that he wasn't a blowhard and you're talking about collateral damage and cowards and changing the subject. So, in what way is Cheney a blowhard? Does he just shoot off his mouth and not back it up with action? Give me an example or two.