http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525742.stm

So apparently the Dutch cabinet has been heatedly debating pulling their troops out of Afghanistan, because they've been in there 2x longer than they're supposed to, and one party supports keeping them there, and the other opposes it.

I'm sure you all have heard the somewhat sophistic statistic that we've been in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than we were in WWII. Is there a point when fighting these guerilla fighters essential becomes TOO tiresome for the American people?

Is there another solution?

I think there is a point when we get tired of this almost futile ground war, and I think we'll have to find new solutions. I think we'll fall short of the autonomous vehicle mandate, but the aggressive goal is going to make a lot of progress (general progress... regarding the engineering). With predator drones being so successful, this technology is going to evolve significantly, and this type of war is where our future is, and in the short-ish term I think (~10 years).

So, in conclusion, I think we're coming up on our breaking point, i think we'll be okay because of semi-autonomous weapons platforms, I think the increased cooperation like we have with the Pakis is going to re-open diplomatic doors for us, as well as the general demeanor of the OBama admin towards diplomacy.

We can't keep fighting forever, and we'll never kill all the religious extremists.

2/19/2010 11:24:27 PM

Perpetual war.

2/19/2010 11:40:39 PM

Have you ever read 1984?

2/19/2010 11:57:51 PM

Quote :

"We can't keep fighting forever, and we'll never kill all the religious extremists."

yes we can and will you lame fuck. only pussies like yourself give up.

2/20/2010 12:33:48 AM

Quote :

"We can't keep fighting forever, and we'll never kill all the religious extremists."

Killing the religious extremists only fuels their cause and creates more.

2/20/2010 12:36:25 AM

^^ haha, you’re an idiot.

Nowhere did I mention giving up.

And you’re really the pussy fuck for sitting here in the comfort of your keyboard, telling the families of 7000 dead soldiers that if we don’t maintain the status quo indefinitely, that we’re just a bunch of pussies. That’s a morally repugnant thing to think.

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 2:17 AM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 2:13:28 AM

pack_bryan for next US President.

He obviously has the requisite amount of chest-thumping ability for the job.


[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : And idiocy as well...]

2/20/2010 8:06:07 AM

We should send pack_bryan over there to take care of the problem since he's fucking Rambo and all.

2/20/2010 10:55:46 AM

moron:

Quote :

"I think there is a point when we get tired of this almost futile ground war"

100% agreed.

In conclusion -



+

+



=



[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM. Reason : 1]

2/20/2010 11:33:06 AM

I'll be honest, I had reached my "this is enough" point with all the talk about the surge in Iraq. You can go back and look at my posts here, I was pretty much sure we'd fail. Well...it seems to have worked. This isn't to say we'll have the same success in Afghanistan (where regimes go to die) but I'd say it's worth a good shot.

2/20/2010 11:43:04 AM

it worked in that it reduced violence. but politically, iraq is still pretty fucked. and that just means it's likely a matter of time after we leave that there will be more violence/civil war.

2/20/2010 11:49:40 AM

^so what do we do to fix their society/politics to prevent wars then sarijoul

i know you don't have an answer to that question so no need to attempt an answer.

2/20/2010 11:58:11 AM

Quote :

"so what do we do to fix their society/politics to prevent wars"

i think the idea that we can "fix their society/politics" is what got us into this mess to begin with. nation-building generally doesn't work. but since we were dumb enough to go to iraq in the first place, i think slowly drawing down our troops while training theirs is probably the best of the bad options. and then we should leave them to their own devices. there will probably be more violence. i don't think there's any way to avoid that (aside maybe from permanent occupation)

2/20/2010 12:01:50 PM

The Rules of Engagement in urban settings is restrictive. War is hell and innocents get killed we are trying to limit those losses by our rule of engagement. Granted those losses will never be completely eliminated. Its hard to fight a war with an enemy that uses bystanders as shields.

2/20/2010 12:05:24 PM

Quote :

"it worked in that it reduced violence. but politically, iraq is still pretty fucked. and that just means it's likely a matter of time after we leave that there will be more violence/civil war."

I've been waiting for the country to slide back into chaos as well, but it just hasn't seemed to happen yet.

I think it's a reasonable expectation that the training we have given their army will be enough to help maintain some sort of order. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has a valuable resource that can enable money to flow into their country and a investment to happen. It is certainly up to them to not infight and make this happen.

2/20/2010 12:08:04 PM

^^ that’s nice, but what exactly are you responding to or talking about in the context of this thread…?

[Edited on February 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2010 12:08:19 PM

you say we are at a breaking point. I think you may be right we are reaching a breaking point, but rules of engagement has made it harder to fight on these battle fronts.

2/20/2010 12:16:38 PM

ahh, i see.

But aren’t those rules necessary because of the type of battle? Our goal isn’t to take over the country, our goal is to enable stability. If our goal was to take over, 19th century style, then less restrictive rules of engagement wouldn’t matter.

2/20/2010 12:18:40 PM

^ exactly. Just blowing everything up won't help us achieve our end goals there.

Quote :

"Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has a valuable resource that can enable money to flow into their country and a investment to happen. It is certainly up to them to not infight and make this happen."

Bullshit. Afghanistan very much has a valuable resource. it's just that the US and other countries are too fucking stupid to allow it to be used what with idiotic drug-laws

2/20/2010 4:30:08 PM

The fact is that we're going to see more and more guerrilla warfare in the conflicts that the United States will wage during our lifetime. We've achieved such a massive conventional warfare advantage that even with double digit growth in military capabilities by nations like China, few are going to try and challenge us in a "traditional" conflict.

I think what we'll most likely see is what you've proposed: the United States arming proxies to battle for us. In some ways, it feels like a post-Vietnam repeat where the US, sick of fighting small wars, simply gave weapons and training to those who would do our fighting for us. Lob a few cruise missiles and Predator-drone strikes against specific, high value targets. Of course, there are both advantages and disadvantages to this approach as history has shown.

I wouldn't give unmanned platform too much credit though. They certainly are a force multiplier, but if you remember from the 1990s, simply raining ordinance down upon people we don't like doesn't make a huge impact by itself and if anything, can be counterproductive. Whether it be special ops, military advisers, or an entire MAGTF, nothing can substitute boots on the ground.

Regarding Afghanistan specifically, I think we'll see the same sort of closing strategy that we did in Iraq: try to build up the Afghanistan government, military, and police to a certain level then declare victory and go home.

2/20/2010 4:50:57 PM

Our country is already at the breaking point financially...we can't afford much more war.

2/20/2010 10:57:24 PM

We couldn't afford it to begin with, really.

2/21/2010 2:04:33 AM