Views on the war on terror

[MaverickMike 10]

I was recently having a drink with an old school buddy of mine who is currently serving in the british army and has seen action in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasnt long before the subject of the war came up and without quite realising what I was saying (alcohol may have influenced my words) I went on and told him that all the troops should be brought home and that we should just leave them to it.

 

His reply was to look my straight in the eyes and say 'what about the guys who have died there? If we pull out now, wouldnt their deaths mean absoloutely nothing?' I was left dumbfounded because, I simply didnt have an answer.

 

This conversion made me realise that no matter what us civilians think, its the thoughts of soldiers that should matter the most. I already had the greatest of respect for the guy but my opinion of him went through the roof at that moment. Imagine how difficult it must be seeing friends shot and blown up, civilians caught in the crossfire and the general feeling of being in a warzone, knowing that some of the people at home do not support what you are doing. I know fully support the war.

 

Is there anyone here that shares my views, or if you oppose them please let me know. It would be interesting to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter...

 

Mike

Edited January 12, 2010 by MaverickMike

[+hgbn 91]

I think that war should be stepped up. Keep T-ban under constant pressure. Never let them find a peaceful spot where they can reorganize. Only way to win that war. It's not a war in Afghanistan but a war against terror we cant afford to lose. If we pull our troops out they just train more terrorist and send them against us on our home turf. Just my opinion. But requires a lot of more troops in that country.

[+Julhelm 266]

Sunk investment is a bad argument for keeping on beating a dead horse. Results are what matter and until there is a dedicated offensive on both sides of the afghani/pakistani border along with dedicated nationbuilding there won't be any viable results. And even with that once the taliban is gone they'll keeping training new batches of jihadists in some other place, and frankly the reason they're doing that is because they know islam as a religion is evolving just as christianity did from backwards fundamentalism towards moderate secularism, and these guys are adamant to stop this. This is why there are religious controllers running around in muslim neighbourhoods in our countries, just like there used to be in northern Ireland during the troubles. Instead of pouring more fuel on the fire we should be encouraging the move towards moderate secularism and instead fight the spread of fundamentalist wahabism that's exported from Saudi Arabia.

 

Dropping bombs won't work because it's not total war against individual nation states.

[agamemnon_b5 0]

A posters bring up excellent points.

 

I think we should increase our warfighting efforts, but we must also rely on the military Civil Affair units to build relationships with the locals and use our diplomatic corps more.

[eraser_tr 29]

This topic has trouble all over it, but I haven't gotten into an artillery barrage with typoid in a while

 

religion is evolving just as christianity did from backwards fundamentalism towards moderate secularism

 

You live in Europe right? Here Christianity is devolving into backwards fundamentalism in ways that are frightening.

 

Anyway, we're stuck in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. We suck at nation building, and the only successful counter insurgencies took far longer than anyone is willing to tolerate now (see phillipines early 1900s). So unless we're willing to sit through the most expensive war in history lasting at least til the end of this decade, people will have died in vein. Like with Vietnam, its worse to continue going through what simply won't be winnable in the end. Democracy and civilization have to evolve, you can't impose it on a tribal culture that has changed little since the third century.

 

It would be better to leave a small special forces group to hunt al queda and nothing else. Screw everything else, Karzai, elections, afghan security, the taliban, let the place remain a hellhole. We have enough to worry about and it's called the graveyard of superpowers for a reason.

 

As for the global and ideological end, bombing people isn't the best way to stop people hating you. For less money we could feed the entire world's hungry and it would get us much farther. Warfare only works if your aim is the complete destruction and submission of an enemy.

[dsawan 624]

This is a low intensity guerilla war they are fighting. We did this in Vietnam. it's the same situation,period. There was never a reason to go to Iraq and Afghanistan in first place. There were no weps of mass destruction and to make the US safer than ever before is lame. Insurgents can hit us anywhere. Look at Fort Hood shooting or the 13 men killed here recently. Look at beirut in 1983. As for the men who have died already, what about the men in Vietnam, We lost 58,000 and thousands more are still suffering from flashbacks,injuries and the memory of it. Their families are suffering as well. It's the committment and fact that the US is willing to deploy around the globe and sacrifice men that shd be remebered on our soldiers. They shd be brought home. also, this is something that could go on for many decades. Look at the Hundred Years war beteen Britain and France. It;s not something insurgents will simply forget. But that;s just my opinion.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I'm thinking like Julhelm. Mav, that guy's response should tell alot between the lines. Tip: stay away from the booze though! : drinks :

 

 

 

-- military Civil Affair units --

 

Sounds creepy. Are you sure that will work in the field in the face of unpopular authoritarian governments that our civilian "leaders" are propping up? I'd guess this is where the otherwise unpopular terrorists get an excellent recruitment device. hgbn, that's why I'm kinda thinking the other way. Expand the Forever War, expand the terrorism.

 

 

Through Amazon, ya'll might still locate a used copy of...

 

The Soviet Partisan Movement, 1941 to 1944, by Edgar Howell; Dept. of the U.S. Army, 1956.

 

It details the Soviet partisans terrorizing Russian and Ukraine villages, slaughtering them, to show the locals that the Germans could not control their rear areas, and so create fear of cooperating with the Germans. It sounds like today's post-modern Islamic terrorism through fear. Caught between Nazis and Communists. That had to have been hell on Earth. And we funded it all through Moscow. A curious soft hardback; great fold out maps.

 

 

Trying to find a decent link to Smedley Butler's book, but post-modern antiwar websites are...annoying. F.A.S. has a very short speech given by Butler here...the whole book+ can be found at Amazon. Yea I take this guy seriously.

 

Smedley Butler on Interventionism, 1933 ~> http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

[agamemnon_b5 0]

US Army Reserve Civil Affairs units have been around for decades have done wonders, they are just under utilized. USAR Civil Affairs specialize in stuff like funding local villages, engineering, building schools and stuff like that. There job is to build bonds with locals.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

US Army Reserve Civil Affairs units have been around for decades have done wonders, they are just under utilized. USAR Civil Affairs specialize in stuff like funding local villages, engineering, building schools and stuff like that. There job is to build bonds with locals.

Thanks!!

 

Recently, there was a Pakistan town (I think) that booted out the Taliban, and a week or so ago they got mauled by a Taliban revenge attack....right.. it was a car bomb on a soccer field. Killed dozens of locals.

 

All I figure is that Afganistan was once a modernizing nation, then the Soviets and CIA came and left them with rubble. Something sad is going on here.

[eraser_tr 29]

Afghanistan very much had a real reason (oil and geopolitical chess aside) it's just become so FUBAR. We could have been done early 2002, but all the ulterior motives anyone could ask for kept us there.

[MaverickMike 10]

Surely if we pull out then the taliban and al-qaeda will then continue to grow. They would rally more to their cause by using the fact that we have pulled out as a victory. Civil war will begin raging, and by pulling out the ordinary afghans will most probably turn against us. We have to finish the job now. If we pull owt we will only end up back doing the same thing within the next 10 years, only this time without the hearts and minds of the citizens.

[+Julhelm 266]

You don't get it. The taliban and al-quaida aren't some local phenomena that can be defeated through conventional means. They're ideological causes and you cannot defeat them with military means. Has it ever occured to you that any Joe Sixpack can form his own little local terror cell that is a part of Al Quaida? Just like destroying Nazi Germany didn't kill off the nazi ideology, defeating the local taliban in Afghanistan won't put an end to fundamentalist islamist and terrorism. Look at the troubles. That didn't end through any military means, but rather because in the end people grew tired of the whole thing. The same will happen with islam, and what we see now are a few bad apples refusing to accept leaving the middle ages behind.

 

And there are local terrorist training camps everywhere from here in Sweden to the US and they're all the same regardless of if they refer to themselves as anarchists, neo-nazis, jihadis or fundamentalist christians. They're symptoms of the same illness and the way to cure the illness is with integration, jobs and better social safety net. Hell, anytime someone loses his job and gets stuck in the unemployment trap you get a potential terrorist trainee.

 

It's not an 'us vs them' situation that can be solved by bombs or ever more intrusive legislation and we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we fall for that kind of lies. Sure it makes politicians look good and manly when they talk about getting 'tough on terror' but it doesn't actually produce any results other than getting good guys killed for naught.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Sunk investment is a bad argument for keeping on beating a dead horse. Results are what matter and until there is a dedicated offensive on both sides of the afghani/pakistani border along with dedicated nationbuilding there won't be any viable results. And even with that once the taliban is gone they'll keeping training new batches of jihadists in some other place, and frankly the reason they're doing that is because they know islam as a religion is evolving just as christianity did from backwards fundamentalism towards moderate secularism, and these guys are adamant to stop this. This is why there are religious controllers running around in muslim neighbourhoods in our countries, just like there used to be in northern Ireland during the troubles. Instead of pouring more fuel on the fire we should be encouraging the move towards moderate secularism and instead fight the spread of fundamentalist wahabism that's exported from Saudi Arabia.

 

Dropping bombs won't work because it's not total war against individual nation states.

 

I totally agree. Pouring more and more bombs upon a more and more impoverished country will resolve naught. They'll continue to raise armies of orphans from this undeclared war, those who have lost everything due to the brutal foreign occupation. How many they have seen there, of these brutal attempts of foreign occupation? Mongols, Moghols, Persians, Russians, Brits, Russians again... Most of these attempts hid behind seducing pretexts: unified empire, unified Islam, civilization, Socialist fraternity, and now the ultimate Western vision of constitutional democracy. All of these invaders have nevertheless been driven out from mountains that were not theirs, totally disgusted, bringing back their puppet leaders with them or letting them behind.

 

The real danger about terrorism in Western countries doesn't come from these huge armies of illiterate fanatics, but from tiny, trained, long and carefully prepared covert ops cells like those of 09/11. Such small "elite" units need money, plenty of money. And where does the money come from? Afghan heroin, yes, yes. But mainly from those countries who have money, plenty of it. I mean the Gulf monarchies, you know them: our best friends. Indeed, most of Taliban executives come from these countries. Today, the idea is to put high pression upon one of these peninsular countries, Yemen. But the poorest of them, accidentally.

 

As long as these principalities will play the tricky game with us, as long as our Western democracies will support and protect those despotic political systems, as long as the US senators and our Euro politicians will lick all those sandbox princes' slippers as they wait for golden retirements from them, there will be no end to the so-called War on Terror.

[MaverickMike 10]

Its not that I don't get it.I fully understand that extremism is not a country that you can go and blow up. Surely stopping taliban operations in afghanistan will hurt the extremists though? I can understand your point. How do you fight an ideology? The extremists will have an upper hand against conventional forces as they are willing to die. Maybe, as was mentioned earlier, we should switch to using a religious approach...

[+Julhelm 266]

Stopping the taliban in afghanistan will not hurt anyone because they'll just continue operating as before. Extremism is not like fighting COBRA where if you just kill Cobra Commander the whole thing comes crashing down and everything will go back to normal. The world doesn't work like that. You fight extremists with enlightenment and social integration. The best way to fight backwards people is to educate their kids, which is why homeschooling and private religious schools should be illegal.

 

Also the scaremongers always talk about how them thar muslims will take over Europe by 2050 or so by breeding more prodigiously than we do which is absolute bollocks. All research thus far into social/cultural science indicates that once people become integrated into a well-educated society with a high standard of living, they will have less children compared to those who stay behind in backwards s**tholes.

[+Gepard 11,192]

I will focus my words on war theory and on conclusion toward the war at the Hindukush.

 

The term "War on Terror" or "War against Terror" show the problem. Its a problem of understanding. Terror is no opponent which you can fight. Terror is a tactic, its a strategy. "War against terror" is nonsens like "War against Blitzkrieg" or "War against Retreat". You can fight only against an enemy.

Conclusion: Look who the enemy is. Name it. Then decide how to fight.

This are the basics.

 

The other basics are written in the book "Vom Kriege" by the prussian general Carl von Clausewitz. This book is standard in all military libraries all around the world. Its an old book (written 1832) but up today the best book about the subject of war. Read it and you know what went wrong in Afghanistan.

Two basic rules by Clausewitz are called "Victory".

1." To achieve the victory you must fight with all power, with all ressources and with all methodes of warefare. If not you will lose the war."

 

Ask: Is the west willing to fight following the first rule?

 

If yes we should sent more men into Afghanistan. And if i say more men i'm not speaking of 30.000, but of 3.000.000.

 

If no then we should retreat as fast as possible.

 

2 rule by Clausewitz:."The victory is achieved either if the enemy is accepting our will or if he is totally annihilated, so that he is unable to resist our will."

 

Conclusion: Our enemy are the taliban. They are fanatic religious motivated guerilla fighters. It is impossible to break their will. Thatswhy they must be annihilated man by man.

 

But as guerilla fighters the taliban were supported by the people of Afghanistan (Mao said: A guerilla is withn the people like a fish in the water. It is difficult, or nearly impossible to decide friend or foe)

 

Conclusion: To annihilate all taliban it is neccessary to annihilate all supporters. What in reality means, that if one person in a village would support the Taliban you must annihilate the entire village, all men, women, children, even all animals. You must burn them out. You must break the resistance by all means. What means our forces will have to do warcrimes to win this war.

 

Ask: Is the west willing to fight in this way? Is he willing to accept war crimes to annihilate the enemy.

 

If the answer is yes, then send more troops.

 

If the answer is no, then call back the boys.

 

 

 

Final conclusion following Clausewitz: Make a war right, or let it be.

[+Dave 2,322]

Good point Gepard, we would have to stoop to their level in order for total victory. That is something no one is willing to take on. Al Q knows this and will continue to wage the war their way. They wont just stay in Afghanistan though, they want to branch out and have other fundamentalist states. So then what? Wait until they are on your shores before something gets done? It's easy to play arm chair quarterback when you aren't at the tip of the spear. Talk to people like EricJ, or porterjr, Crab_02, serverandenforcer who have been at that tip.

 

Julhelm you brought up some great points, but the problem is that they do not want to be integrated. They all want the world under Sharia Law. Where you can be executed on a whim for just about anything. No soccer playing. No kite flying. No movies. Women are totally subservient to men and can be executed on the whim of their "husbands" You all have read the stories. So just like the Nazi's of WWII, they had to be defeated. Yes the way the war is being fought is different but the principle is still the same. Yes there are some Nazi's around but they don't own all of Europe, they are all rhetoric now. Its an interesting problem that doesn't have any good solutions.

[MaverickMike 10]

I guess this begs the question of whether winning this war is worth stooping to this level. Killing families of terrorists makes us war criminals, but may be exactly what is needed to bring Al qaeda and the rest of the nutters down. I agree with Gepards view. All or nothing.

 

 

 

[JediMaster 451]

Well, we did so well with the War on Drugs, what were you expecting from this one?

The difference is this time we've got a lot more people and money invested, and lost.

[Vigilant 1]

Many fine points were raised in this topic.

The biggest problem in my oppinion is that the "War on Terror" is more of political nature, rater than military. Simply, there are two objectives 1) destroy existing terrorists 2) prevent creation of new ones. The first objective is mainly military matter and the other is a political one. While the military is more or less succeding the politicians are not. It is questionable if they can. Eraser's simpler method of "get in, kill everything that moves, find the locals a new dictator and get out" would work unless you have to do it every five years (and it simply ignores that at least part of public back home doestn't like the "he is a dictator, but ours" part).

 

At this moment withdrawal may result in worse conseuqences than staying. It would be interpreted as a great victory by the Jihadists and what that would do with stability of the region (where fanatical theocracy is in most countries one assasination away). Compare with consequences of Vietnam war on SEATO or SEA in general. Back then Soviets won, but in the end it gained them nothing. What will the Jihadists gain is unknown.

 

I am not sure how much of classical works on warfare (von Clausewitz, Sun Zu, etc.) can be applied on current circumstances. If you look at them more closely you'll find that they all originated in remarcably similar circumstances. They were written in times when war was common, but mostly on relatively small scale (Napoleonic wars are a exception to this, but Napoleon's introduction of decisive warfare was an exception to the rule). They were fought between highly organized states and governed by generaly accepted rules (law of war if you'd like). This is both background of these books and also of modern western understanding of war (with the exception of small scale) - "War is continuation of politics by other means, conducted in a manner dictated by generaly accepted law and custom". The other side doesn't do it this way. You don't have a state to fight and neither there are accepted rules of war. This will in time result in the brutality Gepard talked about. Another example from history - firebombing during the second world war - in the end anything that reduces the enemy capability to fight was acceptable. Was in brutal? Yes. Was it necessary? There was war.

 

So there is no simple, clean solution. Interesting times are probably ahead...

[+Julhelm 266]

Julhelm you brought up some great points, but the problem is that they do not want to be integrated. They all want the world under Sharia Law. Where you can be executed on a whim for just about anything. No soccer playing. No kite flying. No movies. Women are totally subservient to men and can be executed on the whim of their "husbands" You all have read the stories. So just like the Nazi's of WWII, they had to be defeated. Yes the way the war is being fought is different but the principle is still the same. Yes there are some Nazi's around but they don't own all of Europe, they are all rhetoric now. Its an interesting problem that doesn't have any good solutions.

Who are "they"? Is it the Taliban or is it all muslims? If the latter you're dead wrong. In fact most muslims here come from places like Turkey or the Balkans, and they are more than happy to integrate and they're really no more religious than average Joe Sixpack. With the arabs they come from areas less developed and so are more likely to be backwards fundies, but at any rate their kids do try to integrate and what's really needed is more help from the government to reach that goal. You have to realize that those who come here as adults from say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia are likely to be lost causes as far as de-fundamentalising goes, but their kids are not and if we can reduce whatever backwards influence the family can excert then half the battle is won.

 

I suppose you're talking about the Taliban but it really does come across as treating all muslims as a homogenous group. There are extremists but the best way to combat them is to expose their lies for what they are.

[MaverickMike 10]

I think Dave was referring to Extremists. As far as I know, they are the only muslims that follow sharia law.....

[Dogzero1 16]

Good point Gepard, we would have to stoop to their level in order for total victory. That is something no one is willing to take on. Al Q knows this and will continue to wage the war their way. They wont just stay in Afghanistan though, they want to branch out and have other fundamentalist states. So then what? Wait until they are on your shores before something gets done? It's easy to play arm chair quarterback when you aren't at the tip of the spear. Talk to people like EricJ, or porterjr, Crab_02, serverandenforcer who have been at that tip.

 

Julhelm you brought up some great points, but the problem is that they do not want to be integrated. They all want the world under Sharia Law. Where you can be executed on a whim for just about anything. No soccer playing. No kite flying. No movies. Women are totally subservient to men and can be executed on the whim of their "husbands" You all have read the stories. So just like the Nazi's of WWII, they had to be defeated. Yes the way the war is being fought is different but the principle is still the same. Yes there are some Nazi's around but they don't own all of Europe, they are all rhetoric now. Its an interesting problem that doesn't have any good solutions.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Currently, here in the UK, we have fundamentalist muslims spitting on returning troops, holding banners up stating death to the british soldiers and even attempting to disrupt funeral processions for soldiers and airmen who have paid the ultimate price. These muslims were born in the UK and as far as I am concerned, they are traitors and should be executed. The war on terror really is a war against muslim fundamentalism or it should be/will be.

 

I served up until 2008, having done 23 years in the Royal Air Force. My last two tours of duty abroad were in Kuwait/Iraq during the original war fighting phase and then Afghanistan 2 years later. I saw first hand how much these Muslims detest the west and hate us. The reason for carrying on in the war on terror as far as I am concerned is that the war is against the Muslim terrorist fundamentalists who want world domination. I have deep feelings on this and for that I dont apologise. What we really need is for moderate muslims to go against these nutjobs, but they dont for some reason. Either we defeat them now or we fight for survival 50 years down the road.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Dogzero1

[serverandenforcer 33]

Our efforts in staying in the Mid-East fighting have kept the war there. It has limited the enemy's resources to expand outward and to attack abroad. Does this mean that they are totally incapable of carrying out attacks throughout Europe and the US? No, but it makes it that more difficult. We're in the enemy's backyard, blasting away at their foundation. This is their home that we are destroying, and they will not abandon it so easily. It's personal to them, and we will keep it personal, for they have made it personal for us on 9/11. We will stay and haunt them, forever I hope. To completely anihilate them is not the best solution. You make them a marter that way, rallying more support for their cause. Terrorism is a complex entity, in which if you cut off the head, another will grow in it's place. In this case, instead of totally destroying what is perceived to be the enemy itself, be a plague, a disease in which they loathe and regret. Make the people support them have to constantly ask, "Why are they still here?" At some point, they will want to get the answers from the horses mouth, and when they find out the real reason, they will no longer support these extremists. This is not something that is achieved over night, or within a couple years. This is an investment that takes a long period of time, decades, maybe even a century. If we have the will, the determination, and the commitment, we will win. If we doubt the resolve of this conflict, then we have already lost. Only the weak give up easily. The strong endure, and keep pushing and pulling, never resting, never bitching, and never regreting.

Edited January 13, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[FalconC45 158]

I am not sure how much of classical works on warfare (von Clausewitz, Sun Zu, etc.) can be applied on current circumstances. If you look at them more closely you'll find that they all originated in remarcably similar circumstances. They were written in times when war was common, but mostly on relatively small scale (Napoleonic wars are a exception to this, but Napoleon's introduction of decisive warfare was an exception to the rule). They were fought between highly organized states and governed by generaly accepted rules (law of war if you'd like). This is both background of these books and also of modern western understanding of war (with the exception of small scale) - "War is continuation of politics by other means, conducted in a manner dictated by generaly accepted law and custom". The other side doesn't do it this way. You don't have a state to fight and neither there are accepted rules of war. This will in time result in the brutality Gepard talked about. Another example from history - firebombing during the second world war - in the end anything that reduces the enemy capability to fight was acceptable. Was in brutal? Yes. Was it necessary? There was war.

 

So there is no simple, clean solution. Interesting times are probably ahead...

 

Actually Sun Tzu's book did helped the NVA and the VC kicked our butts in Vietnam. The generals in North Vietnam also used the Game "GO" for tactical ideas. Our Generals use "Chess" tactics. IMHO US Generals and Spec Ops officers need to read "Art of War" and play "GO"; from I'm seeing in the news, Terriosts are using similiar tactics that NVA and VC was using ie Ambushes and Boobie traps (IED's)

 

And I'd give a copy of "Art of War" to Pres. Obama.

 

Falcon