| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| A top general says more troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan |
| 2008-07-31 |
| There's military slang that seemingly applies to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan today. The operative acronym is FUBAR - Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition. That first letter doesn't really stand for "Fouled," and the R sometimes stands for Repair. One of the sharper military analysts I know has just returned from a tour of that sorrowful nation, which has been at war continuously since the Soviet Army invaded it in late 1979. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who retired from the U.S. Army with four stars and a chest full of combat medals including two Distinguished Service Crosses, says we can't shoot our way out of Afghanistan, and the two or three or more American combat brigades proposed by the two putative nominees for president are irrelevant. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #8 HMMMMM, massive US-Allied investment aside IMO I don't think getting Afghani-Paki farmers to switch to FLORIDA ORANGES ala 1980's WAR ON DRUGS is gonna work in this region. This region has basic been a NO-MAN'S LAND for 00's of yarns as per EAST-WEST TRADE, and will likely remain so for decades to come. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES > ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT/RECONSTRUX > in absence of anything else, perhaps its time for the US-Allies to consider turning Afghani-Paki into a major, LEGIT Regional-Global source of CHEAP PHARMACEUTICALS AND DRUGS. THE PRIORITY RIGHT NOW IS TO FIND SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH EMPOWERING AS WELL AS PROFITABLE FOR LOCALS, WHILE ALSO BEING LOW-COST AMAP FOR AMERICA. The lack of substantive local development is another reason. among others, why THERE CAN BE NO "STALEMATE" IN THE WOT BWTN THE USA + RADICAL ISLAM, AS PER UNIPOLAR DOMINATION OF OWG-NWO. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-07-31 23:44 |
| #7 i agree... more troops in a-stan is not the answer. more HE in pak-land is. |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2008-07-31 23:36 |
| #6 Oops!! Dropped this into the wrong article; Sorry. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-07-31 22:35 |
| #5 My comments from DoDBuzz: RAND has missed the point in that that “lawfare” only works in a society that believes in the rule of law. Since there are many in the world that do not follow that premise, “lawfare” did not and will not work. That “the police and the courts will take care of it” attitude at places like RAND and the halls of government is the primary reason our troops have had to be used to address the problem after the failure of “lawfare” policy’s. The use of modern police techniques by the military does not negate the need for military presence to make it work. Passing some laws and telling the police and courts to take care of it will not address terrorism or radical Islam. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-07-31 22:33 |
| #4 A |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-07-31 22:13 |
| #3 Actually went to the article. I agree with P2k that this is a lot of bitchin' with no solutions. The only thing he actually recommended was some Combat Engineers w/ Stryker infantry backup. I could have come up with that one. For a man formerly carrying 4 stars this is pretty poor. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-07-31 21:37 |
| #2 We can't afford to fail in Afghanistan Why? As far as I can see there is no point in winning. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-07-31 21:33 |
| #1 Listen to expert McCaffery, here. Heh. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Difference between managers and leaders. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-31 20:09 |