Results 1 to 20 of 148

Thread: The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Understanding and justification are different

    Ken -

    In my opinion, you veer toward the latter.

    And no one has a problem with Pakistan, we are talking about the leadership of the Army and the intelligence agencies, certain of which are able to help us because it just so happens that they trained huge numbers of so-called non-state actors (some of whom just happen to live in training camps and safe houses inside the country), some of which killed Americans on American soil and abroad. Also, they get paid a lot. Add that to the drug money and misdirected aid money and it adds up. Over the years, how much does the missing money add up to (I'm talking total world aid from the 1950s onward). A nuke or two?

    Call it a different kind of Marshall Plan.

    It's only natural that civilians such as Carl and I are leery of militaries that have a history of coups, interfere internally in governance and buy journalists and air time, and threaten their own populations physically. When American military--retired or otherwise--express admiration or a kind of benign understanding indulgence toward such a military, then, well, you can bet civilians start to become a bit testy.

    'Cause it makes us worry about some of you (kidding but you know what I mean).

    I understand that there are brave individuals who don't like the situation and may be trying to help us, but we are talking the realm of dissidents here and not "rogue actors". I sometimes think the term rogue actor was developed to distance ourselves from the fact that we are to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia what Russia and China are to Iran. It's a way to misdirect and lie.

    PS: Training scores of state/non-state actors is a bad strategy, so, no, I don't see how these agencies are acting in their nation's interest. It has hurt them badly and hurt their people badly. It's one thing to say, "this is the situation and we are not going to change it," it's another to say, "gee, they are just following their interests," in a mirroring fashion as if their Army is just like the American Army. Providing intellectual cover probably isn't a good idea because it means that you can't think about a situation properly. Poor rhetoric sometimes leads to poor decision making.

    I didn't think you lot represented the same sort of institution, but if you do think that, can you point me to the American coups that I've missed?

    PPS: Getting this right matters because we are about to embark as a society on a discussion about how we are to work with the currently changing Mid East. I have a sinking feeling we will do the same thing we've done over the years with Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Pakistan and now Afghanistan. It matters to understand how our aid, military or otherwise, how our building up of armies, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan or otherwise, may have long term negative implications for our nation. We inadvertently hurt people, including our own.
    Last edited by Madhu; 10-31-2012 at 02:01 PM. Reason: added PS

Similar Threads

  1. Connections 2010-2018 Wargaming Conferences
    By BayonetBrant in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-21-2018, 10:44 AM
  2. Lost posts on Small Wars Council o/a Jan 8, 2011
    By SWCAdmin in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-10-2011, 02:41 AM
  3. Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)
    By Tukhachevskii in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 10-11-2010, 07:26 PM
  4. Book Review: Airpower in Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 06:14 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts