The reason for going to war ...
should determine the course of action taken in the war; subject to morphing during that course of action (which may lose the thread of the initial reason) - my perception.
I don't see any problem in admitting the following as the reason for going to war in Astan (and for DAs in Pakistan) ...
Quote:
from Wilf
After 911 99% of the US population wanted vengeance. That needs to be admitted.
since that is what I believed in 2001 and still do.
Finel's article attacks the logic of the syllogism laid out below - albeit getting somewhat tied up in comparing the simplicity of using airliners as cruise missiles with the complexity of using IEDs on a large scale (Wilf's AO on both; not mine).
Here is the syllogism:
Quote:
We were, after all, attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda which at the time was operating with impunity under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Given that history, allowing the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan seems self-evidently unacceptable.
Not necessarily. The real question to be asked is whether Taliban support of AQ was necessary to the 9/11 plot, or whether it was simply convenient. The bottom line of Finel's article is that it was not necessary, but convenient (e.g., from a BBC link by David today, the Afghan camps were very convenient).
Moving then to the question of revenge - payback to AQ, which in its simplest form involves killing the people involved in 9/11 (the lower echelon spared us that problem). If you do not accept revenge-payback as a valid reason to make war on these folks, then you have a different perception from me - many do.
In applying the formula "find, fix and kill AQ" (end goal)[*], the question to be asked is whether a military occupation (and nation-building) is a necessary component of obtaining payback, or whether that course of action is likely to be inconvenient for realization of that end goal. Again, answering that question is not my AO - legally, almost any course of action will stand scrutiny.
--------------------
[*] This formula is not suggested as the end-all, be-all solution to preventing future acts of "terrorism" (or, expressed another way, acts of violence by Transnational Violent Non-State Actors). It is simply the logical formula to have our revenge (or in more legalistic terms, our retribution).
I always get nervous when Generals say things like this:
"As long as we have the patience to stay they can never defeat us."
Custer? Percival? Not that either of them said that but the arrogant westerner being superior to the inferior types is bad ju-ju, methinks. Never is such an emphatic word... :wry:
Update and talking to the Taliban
What is going on? A short BBC News clip, note interview with ex-Taliban Amabassador to Pakistan at the end, commenting on talking to the Taliban: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8119110.stm
Apologies for those who cannot view.
davidbfpo
It's difficult and the West will leave
A non-Western contact having visited Kabul recently observed that:
a) The war was increasingly difficult and the Taliban could just wait for the Western presence to end;
b) No-one in Kabul, especially Afghans, thought the West would stay and the latest adjustments were an exit strategy. The one exception a Russian whose views was a new US encirclement strategy.
davidbfpo
Follow The Energy,The Money, And The Map?
Have know idea how accurate this is, but very disturbing if true.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...4&jumival=3511
Hard fight as Taliban stand & fight
Amidst all the media reporting on USMC operations in South Helmand, the link is a BBC report, with five mins video, on the UK operation and note the Taliban are not retreating, whatever firepower is delivered: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8142229.stm
(Apologies if clip will not work).
davidbfpo