The war in Afghanistan is OVER!!!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
War is just different now. Consider that we drove Japan and Germany to surrender by killing massive numbers of civilians
[/quote]

Uh, no.[/quote]

Germany, no perhaps. But Japan definitely surrendered because of civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 2 isolated incidents either, before that we were routinely firebombing major Japanese cities.

Even though Germany surrendered probably more because of military defeats, Allied forces still firebombed major cities and other non military targets.

The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.

22

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
War is just different now. Consider that we drove Japan and Germany to surrender by killing massive numbers of civilians
[/quote]

Uh, no.[/quote]

This is probably true in the case of Japan.

LeMay was firebombing those cities and honestly didn’t give a shit, he was a real hardass and if guys like that are still around they are generally restrained by the rest of the establishment. Afterwards he said if we lost the war, the US probably would have been tried for war crimes for those campaigns.

There’s a good documentary by Errol Morris called “The Fog of War” where he interviews Robert McNamara in his old age. The first 30 minutes or so are about WWII and the founding of the modern defense establishment. It’s worth watching. [/quote]

When millions are dying in a war, “massive number of civilian” casualties is a highly relative description, but I think you can apply that to Germany as well. Here’s one particular incident.

[/quote]

More comprehensive: Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

German civilian casualty estimate: 305,000 - 600,000
Japanese civilian casualty estimate: 330,000 - 500,000

23

I disagree with those who believe that bombing entire villages, high civilian casualities, and fire-bombing is (was) the way to deal with those responsible for 9/11. With the US military might, we’re like a bull in a china shop. Just because we can rain holy hell down on anything we want doesn’t mean we should.

Instead, we should have taken a page out of the Mossad’s book and hunted down the perpetrators one by one. Surgical strikes (yes, assassinations).

We would have saved countless US and civilian Afghani lives, not to mention trillions of dollars.

24

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

Germany, no perhaps. But Japan definitely surrendered because of civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 2 isolated incidents either, before that we were routinely firebombing major Japanese cities.

Even though Germany surrendered probably more because of military defeats, Allied forces still firebombed major cities and other non military targets.

The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.
[/quote]

We were at war with the governments of Germany and Japan. We were not at war with the government of Afghanistan. It’s the War IN Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the country, was simply the arena for the conflict.

You can’t draw similarities between the two.

25

What would constitute a victory in Afghanistan? The people directly responsible for 9/11 died…on 9/11/01. The primary orchestrator of 9/11, I presume, Osama bin Laden, is dead.

26

In case clarification is needed: I do not agree with leaving soldiers in Afghanistan(or anywhere outside of the U.S., for that matter).

27

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What would constitute a victory in Afghanistan? The people directly responsible for 9/11 died…on 9/11/01. The primary orchestrator of 9/11, I presume, Osama bin Laden, is dead. [/quote]

It depends on with whom you’re talking.

It could be anything from the dismantling of AQ and the death/capture of those responsible, to full-on nation building and Afghanistan as a beacon of democracy.

28

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
What would constitute a victory in Afghanistan? The people directly responsible for 9/11 died…on 9/11/01. The primary orchestrator of 9/11, I presume, Osama bin Laden, is dead. [/quote]

It depends on with whom you’re talking.

It could be anything from the dismantling of AQ and the death/capture of those responsible, to full-on nation building and Afghanistan as a beacon of democracy.
[/quote]

That’s my understanding of things.

  1. The dismantling of AQ: Would it be sufficient to have AQ renamed, or is it necessary to eliminate all of those with similar goals?
  2. Nation-building and Afghanistan as a beacon of democracy: Sounds good, and you know what they say about the road to Heaven being paved with good intentions, of course. What if the people of Afghanistan democratically elect folks associated with AQ? Would AQ then be good? Would democracy then be bad? Would that not be real democracy? Perhaps the U.S. is the sole arbiter of democracy and can decide what it is and isn’t?
29

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
Germany, no perhaps. But Japan definitely surrendered because of civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 2 isolated incidents either, before that we were routinely firebombing major Japanese cities.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the Japanese were seriously contemplating to have every single one of its people die in a defense of mainland Japan.

No one knows for sure what caused Japan to capitulate. It could have been the Russians invading Manchuria. It could have been the a-bombs. It could have been because the ultra-militarist faction in Japan was finally outed. It probably was a combination of all these.

But I’m pretty sure the destruction of population centers and killing civilians wasn’t one of it. Pretty much no one except the air force guys seriously believed that you could reduce the morale of the people by killing civilians. I mean, look at the Blitz. The English just got more pissed off.

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.
[/quote]

Again, no. WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI and the U.S. Civil War) was when the concept of total war started, along with the idea that the civilian population should be targeted at will to reduce both morale and industrial capability. Prior to that Western warfare was about beating the enemy armies and capturing places.

It’s a recent idea, risen mostly because of aircraft and rockets.

30

[quote]magick wrote:
Again, no. WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI and the U.S. Civil War) was when the concept of total war started, along with the idea that the civilian population should be targeted at will to reduce both morale and industrial capability. Prior to that Western warfare was about beating the enemy armies and capturing places.

It’s a recent idea, risen mostly because of aircraft and rockets.[/quote]

I’d give the rise of democracy some credit here, too.

31

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
Germany, no perhaps. But Japan definitely surrendered because of civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 2 isolated incidents either, before that we were routinely firebombing major Japanese cities.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the Japanese were seriously contemplating to have every single one of its people die in a defense of mainland Japan.

No one knows for sure what caused Japan to capitulate. It could have been the Russians invading Manchuria. It could have been the a-bombs. It could have been because the ultra-militarist faction in Japan was finally outed. It probably was a combination of all these.

But I’m pretty sure the destruction of population centers and killing civilians wasn’t one of it. Pretty much no one except the air force guys seriously believed that you could reduce the morale of the people by killing civilians. I mean, look at the Blitz. The English just got more pissed off.

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.
[/quote]

Again, no. WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI and the U.S. Civil War) was when the concept of total war started, along with the idea that the civilian population should be targeted at will to reduce both morale and industrial capability. Prior to that Western warfare was about beating the enemy armies and capturing places.

It’s a recent idea, risen mostly because of aircraft and rockets.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m sure folks like Gengish Khan and the like we’re careful to avoid civilian casualties while they captured terrorist. Right. It’s a tactic as old as man.

The only difference is technology which expands reach and carnage.

32

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure folks like Gengish Khan and the like we’re careful to avoid civilian casualties while they captured terrorist. Right. It’s a tactic as old as man.

The only difference is technology which expands reach and carnage.
[/quote]

Would you say that Genghis Khan was acting in defense? It seems to me that I remember hearing something about Genghis Khan building an…the word escapes me…empire, maybe?

If America is better than other countries, then it’s important that it not stoop to their levels. If America is no better than other countries, then it’s not worth worrying about.

33

How do you win a war against an ideology?

34

1 main difference between the Vietnam war and Afghanistan. In Vietnam, you had 2 nuclear armed Communist nations bent on global domination directly and indirectly aiding the Vietnamese. In Afghanistan, the people who were helping our enemies WERE OUR FREAKING ALLIES!!! What do you make of that?

35

[quote]Aggv wrote:
How do you win a war against an ideology? [/quote]

That was the question I was getting at in my first post on this thread.

36

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure folks like Gengish Khan and the like we’re careful to avoid civilian casualties while they captured terrorist. Right. It’s a tactic as old as man.

The only difference is technology which expands reach and carnage.
[/quote]

You should reread the part where I wrote “Western warfare”.

Another thing on the Japanese that I forgot when I wrote that thing-

They surrendered only because the U.S. gave up on the whole “unconditional surrender” thing.

37

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Yeah, I’m sure folks like Gengish Khan and the like we’re careful to avoid civilian casualties while they captured terrorist. Right. It’s a tactic as old as man.

The only difference is technology which expands reach and carnage.
[/quote]

You should reread the part where I wrote “Western warfare”.

Another thing on the Japanese that I forgot when I wrote that thing-

They surrendered only because the U.S. gave up on the whole “unconditional surrender” thing.[/quote]

Sorry, I missed that key point.

But “Western” takes its roots from the W. Roman Empire, right? The Romans were a considerate lot.

38

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

Germany, no perhaps. But Japan definitely surrendered because of civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 2 isolated incidents either, before that we were routinely firebombing major Japanese cities.

Even though Germany surrendered probably more because of military defeats, Allied forces still firebombed major cities and other non military targets.

The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.
[/quote]

We were at war with the governments of Germany and Japan. We were not at war with the government of Afghanistan. It’s the War IN Afghanistan. Afghanistan, the country, was simply the arena for the conflict.

You can’t draw similarities between the two.
[/quote]

The Taliban was the government of afghanistan. We were sort of there to overthrow them. I suppose the official reason was to hunt Al-Qaeda and I suppose Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are distinct organizations, but anyway the Taliban fled into the mountains and to Pakistan and organized an insurgncy from there.

But I am not trying to draw similarities between Afghanistan and WWII. I’m just saying its war. War has had large numbers of casualties and collateral damage in the past. So when media reactions to our own losses in afghanistan and accidental collateral damgage undermine the public support of what we were doing in Afghanistan, it became more difficult to actually get the job done because politics surrounding the conflict became more cautious.

Look at what happened in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive. Even though we countered the Tet Offensive and incurred massive casualties, media coverage made the public lose support of the war, diminished the Pentagon’s credibility, Robert McNamara stepped down and less resources were being committed to the war. With better public support in the states we could have actually committed enough resources to the war in afghanistan without politicians being afraid for their careers

39

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
The point is, this is how war used to be fought and everyone forgets that. We used to fight with the FULL INTENTION OF KILLING CIVILIANS and it worked. It’s war, it sucks, there’s never gonna be a war where no one gets hurt except the bad guys.
[/quote]

Again, no. WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI and the U.S. Civil War) was when the concept of total war started, along with the idea that the civilian population should be targeted at will to reduce both morale and industrial capability. Prior to that Western warfare was about beating the enemy armies and capturing places.

It’s a recent idea, risen mostly because of aircraft and rockets.[/quote]

I wasn’t saying throughout all of history per se. But the idea has been around all century. Even in world war I, german zeppelins were bombing villages. They just weren’t very effective, but the intention was there

40

I know, hence the reason I included WWI in there.

The point being- Intentional targeting of civilian population never really amounted to anything. The Germans always wanted to surrender the moment the Russians started moving directly into Germany but couldn’t because Hitler was fucking insane. The Japanese surrendered only because the U.S. gave up on their “unconditional surrender” pledge.