Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Try logic instead of ad hominen attacks.
The rate of car accident deaths in the US have nothing to do with the cycle from poppy cultivation in Afghanistan to heroin death in the US and the opportunities for at source eradication.

I noticed that you deleted the following from my post, I presume to avoid having to attempt an answer. One more time then:

The simple question must be asked why the US government (under both Bush and Obama) have chosen to cosy up to an obviously corrupt and democratically illegitimate regime ... together with scum of the earth druglords and warlords who infest the country.
You want to try and answer this? If you don't I'll understand.

No, it is not "criminal negligence" as you state. It may be irresponsible, but it is not criminal, and it just highlights why your claim is ridiculous.
LOL.. According to Edward Girardet the book Killing the Cranes, the Bush administration paid 43 million dollar 'eradication' reward payment to the Taliban in 2001 when production was reduced to minimal quantities. Then he lets poppy production blossom after he has run the Taliban out of town.

So call it interesting/unusual/strange/bizarre/crazy/suspicious/irresponsible/negligent/criminally-negligent/or whatever. Lets settle for 'criminally negligent incompetence' shall we?

Would you argue that since US and Brit politicians have the ability and means to reduce deaths by car accident, and they do, that they are criminally negligent in not doing so? If you would, then I have to wonder what criminal code you are referring to.
I asked you nicely to drop the school boy level argument. Your linkage here is ridiculous (your word).

Criminal as an adjective.

Well, I never said that it wasn't an error
Cute answer but did you ever voice an opinion on that somewhere, anywhere?

I am quite familiar with how the Romans managed their empire both militarily and politically.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

Well then you may wish to explain how you failed to connect the dots?

I am also well aware that it is not a simple matter of numbers; although there are minimum numbers necessary to do what you suggested, and those numbers where not available in Afghanistan.
How would you calculate the numbers required for any of the possible 'solutions' that have been muted?

I did not suggest anything other than it is more about how the troops are used than the mere numbers deployed in theatre.

You don't really know much about this stuff do you?

I will certainly grant you that the US rationale for being in Afghanistan has changed over the years. Also, since the US has adopted the somewhat irrational goal of stating that their strategic rationale is to deny facilities to AQ etc. as their current rationale, there are some quite serious problems, many of which are exacerbated by US domestic politics.
The politicians (and their advisors from academia) haven't got a clue. It is to the eternal discredit of primarily the US Joint Chiefs (and also the Brit general staff) that the facts and the implications of the political decisions were not brought home forcefully to their political masters.

And why do you say that the balance of my comment is silly? Is it because you know what you know and facts have nothing to do with it?
I was being polite. You clearly know nothing about force level calculations and you apply 'law' as it applies to conduct of war but ignore 'law' as it applies to drug production/trafficking/etc. Selective and silly.

Try reading something about logic and look up the Rule of the Excluded Third.
Boy, you are so clever.

I have probably read more AARs, from the Brits, Americans and Canadians than most people,
Again I'll have to take your word for it... but tell me, as reading is one thing and comprehension is quite another, what did you actually glean from all that reading?

... and it is quite obvious that the actual amount of lessons learned from Vietnam, etc., is fairly low.
That's what I said... and that is at general staff level and it gets a whole worse when it comes down to those actually deployed on ops in Afghanistan.

That said, that same apparent ignorance needs to be put into a domestic political context where 'strategies" are often defined and imposed by politicians who have no concept of military operations and don't care about anything beyond the next election. Who do you think imposes the RoE's on the troops?
Neither do the academic advisors to the politicians know diddly... that is why it is up to the Joint Chiefs to 'explain' what can and can't be done by the military and when to deploy the Peace Corps instead. (It has become clear that when needed the Joint Chiefs do not have the moral courage to stand up for the men of the military and place their careers and pensions ahead of the good of the military - the US system sucks).

That was implied, but I probably should have spelled it out.
Again I'll have to take your word for it won't I.

Again, go study some basic logic and ask yourself what effect such actions would have on the general population once they were demobbed.
Ok... obviously you didn't understand. So one more time then, I said:

Those of us who have actually fought a counterinsurgency war quickly come to realise that our inability to descend to the levels of depraved barbarity against the civilian population that the insurgents invariably do means effectively our best hope is for a negotiated settlement.

This applies to those who had some human restraint and in the absence of laws some conscience.
Now let me help you here (as one who has actually been at the sharp end).

Using the examples I listed it is actually quite simple to defeat an insurgency if a state is prepared to adopt the methods of (most) insurgents and use methods against the population which out-terrorise the insurgents.

Could ISAF use such methods to 'win the hearts and minds' of the population? Of course not. How do you think the Taliban reduced poppy cultivation by 2001? Kind words and crop replacement programs? No, the gave the population the gypsies warning and the population knew to take it seriously. What threat could ISAF make that would be taken seriously?

[split into two due to length of posting restrictions]