Well, I don't think I'm guilty of saying either
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
I never profess to have "the answer," I am however, able to look at something that is not working, think about it, and offer "an answer," that is both more likely to succeed than "do the same old crap, except more of it," and more constructive than "this sucks."
of those things -- but I do think with respect to the application of HK teams and your "to go after the 2-300 specific men we are after to keep them in the shadows as well." is doing the same old thing...
Quote:
...The threat is the conditions that gave rise to them. To ignore the conditions to attack the symptoms is to make the conditions worse while weakening our ability to resist the real threat at the same time. To me, that is high order short-sighted foolishness.
While that may be true, if you want to change it you have to have concrete and achievable methods to achieve the desired change. I do not disagree with your goal but you have yet to produce a method. To identify a problem is easy, to propose achievable solution is the trick. It is not easy...
Quote:
Personally I prefer what Marc call the "Myth" of our idealistic history over the reality of our current role as enforcer of the effort to sustain an out of date status quo.
Myths are always preferable to reality. :wry:
Reality is harsh, however, I'm not all sure you're correct is saying that we are trying to serve as enforcer of the effort to sustain an out of date status quo. I really do not see that. I think we're trying to sort out the oncoming status and it's too murky to discern so we're casting about, looking at alternatives and I believe it'll take another ten to twenty years to do that. Major change is always incremental and difficult to predict accurately. We'll work it out. Probably won't be your way or the ways I'd propose but our track record is more good than bad...
Well of course you do, I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I slinged "B.S." at your writing, not at your mind - and I stick with it.
That would be 'slung,' the past tense of sling in that sense. As long as I'm giving free English pointers -- not lessons, you're English is really good -- another relates to use of the term B.S. The usual meaning in English (as I recall the German equivalent is less pejorative but still not for polite company) is that the originator of the statement is deliberately lying or that the issue itself is totally illegitimate. It is generally considered to be insulting -- and low grade insulting at that. Since you say you're attacking what I wrote and not my mind, then you are saying that, in your opinion, that statement I made was wrong but instead of simply saying that or inquiring about it, you decided to render a low grade or cheap insult. :eek:
As I agreed that it was wrong, incorrect or whatever but that is was so worded as a deliberate overstatement to make a nonetheless very valid point -- which I note you do not deign to address or attempt to refute -- then for you to reiterate using the phrase with no discussion can only be construed as a deliberate insult -- which as previously stated "I wouldn't have expected anything else." That out of the way, are you just going to growl for your daily confrontation with the scheiße Amis or do you have anything to contribute to the thread? :D
No worries, didn't take it personal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
of those things -- but I do think with respect to the application of HK teams and your "to go after the 2-300 specific men we are after to keep them in the shadows as well." is doing the same old thing...While that may be true, if you want to change it you have to have concrete and achievable methods to achieve the desired change. I do not disagree with your goal but you have yet to produce a method. To identify a problem is easy, to propose achievable solution is the trick. It is not easy...Myths are always preferable to reality. :wry:
Reality is harsh, however, I'm not all sure you're correct is saying that we are trying to serve as enforcer of the effort to sustain an out of date status quo. I really do not see that. I think we're trying to sort out the oncoming status and it's too murky to discern so we're casting about, looking at alternatives and I believe it'll take another ten to twenty years to do that. Major change is always incremental and difficult to predict accurately. We'll work it out. Probably won't be your way or the ways I'd propose but our track record is more good than bad...
Always best to have your thick skin on if you are going to be throwing out any new ideas...and as such I have developed a bit of a Rhino hide over the years. :)
But as to hunting and same ol', same ol', you know it is all in HOW one does things, not so much what they do. As a kid growing up I would see the occasional story in the news where some long forgotten Nazi got himself rolled up by a relentless, low drama, low visibility effort attributed to Israel. I think that makes a good model for rightsizing our man-hunting efforts. I would like to explore that idea; but we'll never get there if we keep expanding the target list and declaring war on every disgruntled dissident/insurgent organization in the world. Put away the circus tent stake driving mallet and get out the scalpel.
Good that you didn't cause it wasn't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Put away the circus tent stake driving mallet and get out the scalpel.
I totally agree and have been saying that for years but I've never been able figure out how to convince the US Congress to do that; they -- not the elected and appointed Executive branch types, not the Army, not SOCOM, not budget and space battles all of which have minor impacts -- are the big pole in that tent...
Yea and two Nays. The Nays have it...
Re: the 'your.' Good one. Got me cold. So that's a Yea. :cool: However...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
See, to me this point is utter nonsense, wrong, misleading and almost indicative of prejudices, hypocritical tunnel vision and over-generalization.
To you, perhaps. You seem to have a distressing tendency to see such errors in a good many things and then attempt to refute them with statements like this:
Quote:
The West is the cultural sphere that unduly emphasizes extreme war goals (since Napoleon) as opposed to limited war goals. (Exceptions as Imperial Japan existed, of course.)Accordingly, the notion that accepting an outcome short of the annihilation of unconditional surrender of the enemy would be a surrender itself is quite specific Western right-wing B.S.
Which while true have little to do with the point at hand. That point is that those from the Middle East and South Asia do not look at compromise in the same way we in the west consider it; they of course accept compromise but the view of what has occurred can and usually will differ. It has nothing to do with limited objectives. So that's a big Nay.
Quote:
Some people may emphasize the fact that accepting limited objectives is a sign that one lacks omnipotence, but that's not the same as the assertion that such a behaviour is "surrender" in "the East".
Not to one who is overly literal, that's for sure...:wry:
OTOH, if one accepts that the follow on to that word was "They do not do compromise other than as a tactical ploy." the intent of the statement is thus modified and nuanced and not as clearcut as was your interpretation but you seem to have missed that .
Quote:
Your "exaggeration" remark is just an excuse to me, for I consider your statement as factually very wrong. It was also very, very misleading - those who believe your statement would be on a completely wrong track in my opinion, and that justifies the term "B.S.".
We disagree. You can home in on the on statement that you fired at and then aimed toward but missed however, it's sheer opinion; Neither of us has one that's any better than the other. Anyone who believed my statement would be better served than would those who got all wrapped up in your "limited objective" and "right wing" foolishness which has nothing to do with what I said. So that's another Nay.As for what a difference of opinion justifies, we can differ on that as well.
Quote:
I feel compelled to intervene before it gets too ugly.
I've noticed. Ugly is also an opinion thing, isn't it? Compulsions are terrible things... ;)
Yep, I got lazy and tried to be come up with a snappy line instead of saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
I would modify it to say you can not negotiate from weakness. Example if you go to the Talliban and say hey lets negotiate a peace agreement I think they would either laugh at you or try to kill you. At a different level it would be seen as weakness and like all predators they would be required to attack a weakness not give in to it.
what you said...
That's a good word for the ME and south Asia, Predatory -- they are that -- but only if you appear weak. Thanks.
It's not that I'm lazy, you understand...:o
Afghanistan is the New Afghanistan
This paper argues that the Russians failed in Afghanistan through its own mis-managed attempts at COIN and nation-building, not repressive population control techniques and tactical losses of helicopters.
Afghanistan is the New Afghanistan
Artemy Kalinovsky
Foreign Policy
Quote:
In practice, of course, things did not quite work out that way. Much like the efforts of the United States and its allies -- building schools without teachers to man them and promoting farming in desertlike areas where nothing grows -- the Soviet attempt at nation-building suffered from poor coordination, ill-planning, and a misunderstanding of indigenous culture. Moscow informed soldiers they were not in Afghanistan to spread communism, but to help people feel the tangible benefits of a working government. Still, enthusiastic party workers drew on Soviet propaganda and organizing principles, often alienating the local population.
These problems were compounded by rivalries among various Soviet agencies and institutions operating on the ground. Aid sometimes did not reach its destination because military commanders refused to relinquish the necessary transport vehicles or provide security. In other cases, Soviet representatives found that their Afghan "clients" had no intention of playing along with their nation-building plans. On one occasion, the KGB cultivated and promised protection, money, and a house to the leader of an insurgency group. The local governor, in turn, promptly denied the insurgency leader the promised housing and seized the cell's weapons
Likewise, though the Afghan military looked strong on paper, with more than 300,000 men and a generous supply of Soviet weaponry, it proved incapable of leading offensive operations. Within several months Soviet troops were fighting the insurgency directly, while Afghan forces did not take the lead in an operation until 1986. The complaints of Soviet officers working with Afghan troops would sound familiar to U.S. and NATO officers today. Recruitment proved difficult. Desertions were rife. Corruption was widespread. Troops avoided going into battle for fear of retribution against their families.
The broader security and occupation dilemma was familiar as well. The Soviet military was perfectly capable of clearing an area of insurgents, albeit not without significant collateral damage. But Moscow never sent enough troops to keep those areas free of insurgents once an operation was completed. There were never more than about 108,000 Soviet troops operating in Afghanistan at any given time
v/r
Mike