Article

2010-09-02 Home Front: WoT

As U.S. deaths in Afghanistan rise, military families grow critical

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2010-09-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [13 views ] Top

#1 Can't we just bring them home already? Why are we there? To stop the Muslims flying planes into buildings.... let's just nuke Mecca instead next time. I don't want any more beautiful Americans dying. Screw the locals if they can't be dragged into the 21st Century then leave them in the stone age to fend for themselves

Posted by anon1 2010-09-02 04:04|| 2010-09-02 04:04|| Front Page Top

#2 To achieve victory and eventually move on, you must control and hold the battlespace. Holding ground takes a very significant number of men and resources. While it looks and sounds impressive, patrolling the roads and surgical Pred strikes are simply not going to be enough. The strategy of our enemy is sadly, quite effective, ie, pin us to our FOBS and outposts, make patrolling costly and wait us out. We've already announced our departure date. There's is a waiting game and one they know quite well.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-09-02 04:44|| 2010-09-02 04:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Besoeker, you are right.... that means this is unwinnable, so why waste any more lives and treasure? We went there for the best of reasons.... it was NOT a war for oil or any of that claptrap that the loonie left whinged about. But we really couldn't win it without defeating the people. Not just cutting off the leadership but massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people, and the home-front wouldn't let us do what was necessary.

The fifth column has prevented victory and a remaking of the middle east.

Posted by anon1 2010-09-02 09:39|| 2010-09-02 09:39|| Front Page Top

#4 General Petraeus has already said, repeatedly, that President Obama's "fixed pullout date" is not fixed at all. The good general managed to win in Iraq, let's give him time to do the same in Afghanistan, before taking our ball and going home... to wait for the next 9/11 attack.

And the critical military families are correct: the rules of engagement are killing our guys.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-02 10:23|| 2010-09-02 10:23|| Front Page Top

#5 'You', the US, 'we' NATO are in Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attack. 9/11 was a mass fatality attack on the continental US unprecedented by anything since Pearl Harbor, a fact that even the liberal MSM acknowledged on 9/11.

At first the consensus was that "no distinction" would be made "between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" as President Bush said.

The Taliban were to "hand over the terrorists" or they would "share in their fate."

The objective was to mete out exemplary punishment to at least the Taliban in order to restore US and western deterrence.

But this policy wasn't maintained for more than a few days after 9/11 2001.

In October of 2001 Powell endorsed a future Afghan government with "moderate Taliban" participation.

Under muslim pressure the Bush administration renamed "Infinite Justice" to "Enduring Freedom".
The former name implied punishment for a transgression the latter is unspecific.

The US air force bombarded Afghan civilians, who were still under Taliban control, with food rations, earning condemnation from western pacifists and contempt from Afghan islamofascists.

Things have gotten much worse since then, Obama's election didn't help either.

At present the west is begging the Taliban to enter a peace process and to eventually join an Afghan government ruling over a kinder, gentler but still very much islamofascistic Afghanistan.

Mullah Omar could join the Karzai cabinet today if he wished to, he would be protected by western forces and not be held responsible for 9/11 in any way.

That is not a political objective that makes sense.

Posted by Snert Grang2025 2010-09-02 12:11|| 2010-09-02 12:11|| Front Page Top

#6 In October of 2001 Powell endorsed a future Afghan government with "moderate Taliban" participation.

Unfortunately, General Powell (ret'd.) did not turn out to be the tower of strength and wisdom as advertised. Your rant is a useful reminder, Snert Grang2025. And we all can be grateful the the good general's distaste for the rough'n'tumble of American politics kept him from running for president.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-09-02 12:27|| 2010-09-02 12:27|| Front Page Top

#7 Not just cutting off the leadership but massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people, and the home-front wouldn't let us do what was necessary.
This is the crux of the Afghan issue. The Home Front wouldn't let us do ...? That question as such was never presented to the electorate. It is not fair to say the Home Front blocked anything. However, had the question been presented to the electorate, I do think that their answer on 9/12/2001 and ever after would have been "HELL NO!" if they were informed of the financial cost and the high probability of losing at least a squad a month for 30 years.
A 'massive cultural transformation of a defeated and occupied people' is way beyond what people in the USA are interested in. We are undergoing our own massive cultural transformation at the moment, and it will take over a decade to resolve. I am not referring to BHO's tilting at his personal windmills, but to the economic changes being forced on the country by the 2nd Great Depression.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-09-02 13:02|| 2010-09-02 13:02|| Front Page Top

#8 True, Anguper, the US is struggling with its own transformation and though the media never calls it out, it really is the Second Great Depression. I am wondering when it will hit Australia.

However, I do not think 30 years would have been necessary. Germany/Japan were not occupied for that long before they became functional.

The Home Front lost it for us. There were already mass protests and disinformation campaign that accompanied the "benign" form of warfare wherein it is made clear that the citizens were not the enemy, only the regime would be targetted.

This leaves the citizens unchanged, undefeated in outlook, just with a new head on the snake.

But the problem with AfPak is the culture. so the citizens ARE the enemy.

So what is needed could have been achieved but the Home Front would not tolerate the measures necessary.

The measures necessary would have been:
1) Massive ground invasion, troop garisons in every town. Soldiers on every corner
2) a complete rebuilding of civil society
3) Compulsory education - brainwashing the Islamofascism out of a generation.
4) liberation of women, banning of the burqa by force.

Ie: complete dismantling by force of some of the aspects of Islamic culture.

Close the madrassahs, close the mosques. Reopen only government sanctioned watered down moderate mosques. No freedom of religion for a decade.

Had we been able to do such a thing from day 1, then we might be able to go home now with a vastly different country over there.

All those kids who were 10 years old in 2001 would be 19-20 now and vastly different humans than their parents generation.

but that was totally culturally untenable. No way would the homefront countenance such a thing. Cultural imperialism, invasion

and yet it would have been the greatest thing to happen for that benighted country

and also for us because then we could have had a strategic asset in the middle east and we would have had a cat to throw among the ideological pidgeons of islam. It would have been a nation then to succeed and be a beacon of freedom to the muslim arab world

Posted by anon1 2010-09-02 21:05|| 2010-09-02 21:05|| Front Page Top

#9 yes and TW is right on both counts. Petraeus is good, maybe he can succeed... though to what end really since we could not change that country.

and yes, the same fifth column on the home front, the bleeding heart brigade, are the reason the rules of engagement are not protecting troops.

forget that hearts and minds crap we need to win. defeat those people, crush their culture and rebuild it from the ground up

or leave and just nuke mecca next time they fly planes into buildings. i prefer that option it's a lot cheaper and simpler.

Posted by anon1 2010-09-02 21:10|| 2010-09-02 21:10|| Front Page Top

23:56 rammer
23:34 OldSpook
23:25 Besoeker
23:01 Frank G
22:58 Mike Ramsey
22:58 Frank G
22:56 Frank G
22:56 Water Modem
22:32 anon1
22:28 Rhodesiafever
22:11 nuevo laredo group
22:07 Rambler in Virginia
21:40 Mullah Richard
21:37 Frank G
21:35 Spatch Speaking for Boskone8774
21:27 Hupusosing Bucket8370
21:13 swksvolFF
21:10 anon1
21:05 anon1
20:57 Entertaining Prose
20:42 anon1
20:29 Frank G
20:27 Procopius2k
20:26 trailing wife