Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Redbeard wrote:

Cane wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Cane wrote:
No one in history was able to defeat Japan either

No one?

Whoops meant in the war sense. Battles =/= war. If we're talking about battles than America and even the Soviet Union won a few of those against Afghan terrorists.

That battle was part of an undeclared war resulting in a neutrality pact where both empires respected specific territories and borders.

Vietnam was an undeclared war. I guess it stays that way so that the US can keep claiming they've never lost a war. Japan invaded mainland Russia with an army. The Russians destroyed that army. Then they negotiated a peace. Just because the initial invasion was undeclared doesn't mean that the Japanese were any less soundly defeated, or that the invasion of a sovereign nation's territory with an army is anything less than a war. It may not have been on the same scale as some other wars, but it's still an invasion.

I see what ya mean but imo that war was more along the lines of The Korean War; both the United Nations and North Korea didn't really win - more or less a stalemate and there too was immense casualties and land conflict. In that Soviet-Japanese War both parties had conditions working for them at the end of it, similar to The Korean War. Vietnam was definitely a loss since it was mishandled politically and we had to leave; leading to Communist control of the country in the aftermath.

I served there twice. The Afghan army were actually pretty good.. well.. when i say "good" i mean "not entirely dogshit"

The police however were absolutely shocking.

I think its going to take over 18 months, but it is certainly feasible that we can scale down alot in the next few years and have 90% of the ground work done by the Afghan Security Forces with a small multi national (ok, USA/UK troops because everyone else is too busy at the disco in Kabul International Airport) QRF who can rock up when required.

And also plenty of armour and especially air support.

But we can definately scale down from current numbers, and It is definately not a war we can "lose" per se.

I mean, look at the big picture, we are trying to get the countries security forces trained and sorted out, and we (espcecially in Helmand province) and getting alot of bother as a result of that, but we have still only lost a "handful" of troops if your looking at things from the slimy poiticians view.

ie. 947 Americans, 236 Brits (at last count, i might have missed a few)

Dont get me wrong, im a soldier myself. It means alot to us and to the families and friends of killed soldiers, and it might sound harsh to say it, but lets cut to the chase, can the US and UK governments easily soak up a few thousand more casualties?

Absolutely.

mattyrm wrote:I served there twice. The Afghan army were actually pretty good.. well.. when i say "good" i mean "not entirely dogshit"

The police however were absolutely shocking.

I think its going to take over 18 months, but it is certainly feasible that we can scale down alot in the next few years and have 90% of the ground work done by the Afghan Security Forces with a small multi national (ok, USA/UK troops because everyone else is too busy at the disco in Kabul International Airport) QRF who can rock up when required.

And also plenty of armour and especially air support.

But we can definately scale down from current numbers, and It is definately not a war we can "lose" per se.

.

How do we lose here? Al Qaeda is smashed. Al Qaeda attacked the US not the Taliban.

Yeah Frazz i said we CANT lose.

The "per se" bit is referring to the unwashed hippy types who keep calling the Afghan conflict "an un-winnable war"

Cool.

mattyrm wrote:I served there twice. The Afghan army were actually pretty good.. well.. when i say "good" i mean "not entirely dogshit"

The police however were absolutely shocking.

I think its going to take over 18 months, but it is certainly feasible that we can scale down alot in the next few years and have 90% of the ground work done by the Afghan Security Forces with a small multi national (ok, USA/UK troops because everyone else is too busy at the disco in Kabul International Airport) QRF who can rock up when required.

And also plenty of armour and especially air support.

But we can definately scale down from current numbers, and It is definately not a war we can "lose" per se.

I mean, look at the big picture, we are trying to get the countries security forces trained and sorted out, and we (espcecially in Helmand province) and getting alot of bother as a result of that, but we have still only lost a "handful" of troops if your looking at things from the slimy poiticians view.

ie. 947 Americans, 236 Brits (at last count, i might have missed a few)

Dont get me wrong, im a soldier myself. It means alot to us and to the families and friends of killed soldiers, and it might sound harsh to say it, but lets cut to the chase, can the US and UK governments easily soak up a few thousand more casualties?

Absolutely.

We can win this easily it will take man power though. I love serving with you Brits btw. You guys always see Marines and want to kick it. Your Royal Marines are some crazy SOB's too. You also always have the good hooch I am probably headed there after I graduate from Warrant Officer school and look forward to a possible tour as an instructor trainer. I have heard and you can probably confirm that the Afghans will actually fight were the Iraqi's we trained lacked a spine. That should speed the process up a bit.

Does anyone know if there's much sectarian violence in Afghanistan? I haven't heard anything about it.

youngblood wrote:Does anyone know if there's much sectarian violence in Afghanistan? I haven't heard anything about it.

Actually a lot as Afghanistan for the past few years has been predominately a sniper, and mortar( HELLZ YA) war. I was a mortarmen so don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. This has actually resulted in some extremely bloody fighting not to mention the attack last month or a few motnhs ago( time just blends in for me to much) were we lost 8 soldiers in one day.

I've heard before that the police in Afghanistan are terribly corrupt.
Sounds like that'd be a major problem in stabalising the country. (Durr, understatement )

Mattyrm, you've a good (or not negative at least) view on the military? Could you see them taking up a policing role at any stage?
One thing I find it hard to wrap my head around is the number of fanatics willing to fight on the other side. The coalition must be inflicting heavy causulties on them, and there's always more? Guys must be freakin' mental.

Empchild wrote:I have to agree with Frazzled plus you may think we are no were near where we were with the great depression, but a lot of that has to do with the checks and balances system as much as the FDIC. Statistically if you pick up a wall street journel you will read that we are at and have even been below the level were our people were in the 1920's. This difference is the population increases and the insurances our gov't has set in place to help ease the burden. Our currency is at the weakest it has been in a while(well almost last year canada's was higher then our ), and the unemployment rates are still through the roof.

Hell I was thinking of even becoming a recruiter being as the national gaurd and reserves had to stop recruiting from april to june because they excedded quota for the first time since the war began back in 2002. This is due to the lack of work out their. I can understand why you would "think" the recession is over, but if you do that just means you either are too young to have to worry about taking care of a family, or you have a nice cushy job that you think you can't get fired from. I dropped out of college to go full time military again in my life, and moved across country just to insure I had a job to take care of my family.

I don't really understand the logic of the argument here.

It seems like saying our ship is worse than the Titanic, except it isn't but only because the architect made sure to provide lots of lifeboats.

BTW the US dollar is probably destined for a long period of weakness. It has only been sustained so far by its de facto status as the major world reserve currency since the abandonment of the gold standard. That status is fading and being replaced by a basket of currencies.

Having a weak currency isn't necessarily bad. It will make your exports cheaper and imports more expensive, which will help your balance of trade. The Japanese are hurting desperately because of the strength of the Yen.

How did all this attach to the Afghanistan plan anyway?

Empchild wrote:

youngblood wrote:Does anyone know if there's much sectarian violence in Afghanistan? I haven't heard anything about it.

Actually a lot as Afghanistan for the past few years has been predominately a sniper, and mortar( HELLZ YA) war. I was a mortarmen so don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. This has actually resulted in some extremely bloody fighting not to mention the attack last month or a few motnhs ago( time just blends in for me to much) were we lost 8 soldiers in one day.

I was asking because one of the largest hurdles for Iraq was sectarian fighting. Just getting people together was a huge task. They didn't want to work together, fight together or anything. I was wondering if the general Afghan populace desires to kick the Taliban out.

youngblood wrote:

Empchild wrote:

youngblood wrote:Does anyone know if there's much sectarian violence in Afghanistan? I haven't heard anything about it.

Actually a lot as Afghanistan for the past few years has been predominately a sniper, and mortar( HELLZ YA) war. I was a mortarmen so don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. This has actually resulted in some extremely bloody fighting not to mention the attack last month or a few motnhs ago( time just blends in for me to much) were we lost 8 soldiers in one day.

I was asking because one of the largest hurdles for Iraq was sectarian fighting. Just getting people together was a huge task. They didn't want to work together, fight together or anything. I was wondering if the general Afghan populace desires to kick the Taliban out.

Iraq was a little different though. The educated class was not allowed to leave the country for decades. Once Saddam fell they got the hell out of that hell hole and moved to Europe or more modernized Arab Nations. We were left with the uneducated to fix a broken country. Afghanistan for the most part is all uneducated. Going to be a very up hill battle on that front. The extremist thrive on the ignorant.

mstersmith wrote:

youngblood wrote:

Empchild wrote:

youngblood wrote:Does anyone know if there's much sectarian violence in Afghanistan? I haven't heard anything about it.

Actually a lot as Afghanistan for the past few years has been predominately a sniper, and mortar( HELLZ YA) war. I was a mortarmen so don't anyone get their panties in a bunch. This has actually resulted in some extremely bloody fighting not to mention the attack last month or a few motnhs ago( time just blends in for me to much) were we lost 8 soldiers in one day.

I was asking because one of the largest hurdles for Iraq was sectarian fighting. Just getting people together was a huge task. They didn't want to work together, fight together or anything. I was wondering if the general Afghan populace desires to kick the Taliban out.

Iraq was a little different though. The educated class was not allowed to leave the country for decades. Once Saddam fell they got the hell out of that hell hole and moved to Europe or more modernized Arab Nations. We were left with the uneducated to fix a broken country. Afghanistan for the most part is all uneducated. Going to be a very up hill battle on that front. The extremist thrive on the ignorant.

Sectarianism hardly has anything to do with education level. Being better educated doesn't strip away prejudice. Reading your answer though, I'm guessing that there isn't a problem with sectarian violence in Afghanistan.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Empchild wrote:I have to agree with Frazzled plus you may think we are no were near where we were with the great depression, but a lot of that has to do with the checks and balances system as much as the FDIC. Statistically if you pick up a wall street journel you will read that we are at and have even been below the level were our people were in the 1920's. This difference is the population increases and the insurances our gov't has set in place to help ease the burden. Our currency is at the weakest it has been in a while(well almost last year canada's was higher then our ), and the unemployment rates are still through the roof.

Hell I was thinking of even becoming a recruiter being as the national gaurd and reserves had to stop recruiting from april to june because they excedded quota for the first time since the war began back in 2002. This is due to the lack of work out their. I can understand why you would "think" the recession is over, but if you do that just means you either are too young to have to worry about taking care of a family, or you have a nice cushy job that you think you can't get fired from. I dropped out of college to go full time military again in my life, and moved across country just to insure I had a job to take care of my family.

I don't really understand the logic of the argument here.

It seems like saying our ship is worse than the Titanic, except it isn't but only because the architect made sure to provide lots of lifeboats.

BTW the US dollar is probably destined for a long period of weakness. It has only been sustained so far by its de facto status as the major world reserve currency since the abandonment of the gold standard. That status is fading and being replaced by a basket of currencies.

Having a weak currency isn't necessarily bad. It will make your exports cheaper and imports more expensive, which will help your balance of trade. The Japanese are hurting desperately because of the strength of the Yen.

How did all this attach to the Afghanistan plan anyway?

More or less kill we were discussing the strain of the war on the U.S economy.

Yeah Boss, the Afghan National Army are alright. The thing with the Afghans culture is, its all about revenge. I think that is the reason why we try to be so softly softly with the local civvies. Many of the ANA guys i spoke to had friends or relatives killed/tortured by the Taliban, and they see it as their "duty" to serve with the ANA, this is why they have the "spine" that people are talking about. Many of them do have the will to fight, they just need to be trained properly and motivated.

The police genuinely are terrible and it is above my head as to what the plan is there. They whinged about how curruption was rife when i was there 18 months ago, and now we saw one a fortnight ago put a magazine into the British lads who were mentoring them.

IMO a good idea would be to offer a pay rise to the cops, try and spin it as a decent job, and then transfer some of the ANA guys over who we percieve as loyal to try and weed out the bad apples and give the ANP some credibility. You know, like forcing some Sternguard Veterans to transfer over to the Imperial Guard for a while!

There's no doubt about that.

Much of the damage was done years ago, though.

The job in Afghanistan should have been finished before diverting attention to Iraq.

That's water under the bridge now, though.

Redbeard wrote:First of all, there have been significant changes in how data is counted, especially in regard to unemployment. I've read several reports that say that if we counted the unemployed using the same method that they used during 1930's, we'd have higher unemployment than we did then. The new unemployment figures throw out claims over a certain age, as they assume (wrongly, in most cases) that the people aren't looking for work anymore. While stocks may not have fallen as far and fewer banks may have failed (due to better safeguards on both), the impact on many families is greater in today's recession than it was during the great depression. The number of families living beneath the poverty line is comparable, and there are tent cities springing up among the newly-homeless that are similar to the 'Hoovervilles' of the Great Depression.

I'd like to see that report, because unemployment was more impactful at a time when vastly fewer families had more than one income.

Setting unemployment aside, let's examine some other stats:

2008-2009 recession: <2 years, <4% decline in GDP
Great Depression: 4 years, 26% decline in GDP

2008-2009 recession: <1% bank failures
Great Depression: 50% bank failures

2008-2009 recession: largest drop in the Dow - 54%
Great Depression: largest drop in the Dow - 89%

"Worst since the Great Depression" <> "comparable to the Great Depression." There are different scales at work here. It's a crappy economy, but the recession is over and it was AA ball compared to the major league event that was the Great Depression. That's not to say there aren't similar factors or that everyone's out of the woods. But nothing NOW is as bad as it got THEN.

My advice to people is to take the financial media with a grain of salt. They're very, very shrill and have a tendency to create news and hysteria. Mostly because there's too many outlets and not enough real financial news to fill air time and web/print space. I can tell you the money managers I talk with A) don't think the two events are remotely comparable and B) aren't expecting to see the return of bread lines, the WPA and the CCC anytime soon.

Secondly, if you can find me someone who lived through the Great Depression who is posting on Dakka, I'll be happy to apologize to them. Otherwise, I don't think anyone here is offended or insulted at the comparison. Feigning insult on behalf of people who aren't present is stupid. Maybe it's not as bad, but to say there is no comparison is ignorant and tremendously insulting to the very real people who are jobless and homeless currently (some of whom are on dakka, and can read this). There are clearly similarities between the two, comparison is possible.

See, I really don't think we're free to insult anyone who isn't posting here. But I'm not going to get drawn into another snark battle with you.

This is about recognizing history and one's place in it. If you legitimately think our people, nation and world are suffering to the degree they did during the Great Depression, I probably can't convince you otherwise without a time machine to prove it. I just have to tell you it's really not the case thanks to the many changes that era brought about.

So imagine an elderly person in 1930 who had their life savings in a bank that failed (9,000 of them did). What do you think happened to them considering no part of their deposit was insured by the government and that they had no Social Security to provide income and no Medicare to cover medical costs?

Again, you can draw some parallels between the two events, but perspective is needed here. One situation was far deeper, more destructive and more dire.

gorgon wrote:
See, I really don't think we're free to insult anyone who isn't posting here. But I'm not going to get drawn into another snark battle with you.

I don't we're free to insult anyone either, but I also don't think it is insulting to draw such comparisons between two events.

This is about recognizing history and one's place in it. If you legitimately think our people, nation and world are suffering to the degree they did during the Great Depression, I probably can't convince you otherwise...

No, I don't think your nation, as a whole, is suffering as badly. However, I do believe that there are plenty of individuals who are suffering just as badly, if not moreso, than individuals did during the great depression.

I know people who are out of work, who have lost their home, who are in thousands of dollars of debt due to medical bills that they'll never pay, and who have lived under bridges at times because of this recession. I'm sure they'll be happy to acknowledge how much worse it was back then.

See, you can't tell someone who has lost their job, their home, and their savings that it was worse in the 30's. To the people actually impacted by current events, their situation is just as dire as a similar individual's was in the 30s. Recessions aren't just about countries and GDPs, they're about people's lives.

I just don't see Obama keeping his promise about pulling out in 18 months.

He claimed to have Gitmo shut down by the end of this year and last I heard that won't happen, his HCR Bill won't get passed before the end of the year (not that I want it to pass at all in it's current state).

He has done nothing he's promised in the time he's promised it. I have friends apparently going over there in 2011 (according to their higher ups) so unless things change it will be like Iraq in that the men and women who should be here in the states (the NG for sure) will be sent on another "peace keeping mission" and be stuck in a country that they have no place in.

I've always wondered what a Democrat President would have done in response to the 9/11 attack.

Fateweaver wrote:I just don't see Obama keeping his promise about pulling out...

GundamMerc wrote:As someone who really cares about statistics, you will find that we have suffered less casualties the entire time our military has been deployed in iraq and afghanistan than in the first 2 days of Operation Overlord, and yet people have been describing this as a meatgrinder. I find that ridiculous in the extreme. More people die in the U.S. in one day than our death count during the entire Iraq War.

Also, the only reasons the Soviet Union (not Russia, there is a difference) lost that war is because:

1. We provided the Afghans with weapons and training.
2. The Soviet Union had a horrible economy that was going down the gutter and could not support the war.
3.The Soviet troops had poor training and morale.

And don't say we have a horrible economy now, the problems with the U.S. economy are nothing compared to the problems the Soviet Union had.

Also, the Soviets had massively different operational goals. They wanted to control the region long term. The US wants to install a sufficiently acceptable government, limit Taliban capability and support then get out. It's still a hard thing to do, but it's not like the near impossible Soviet ambitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:This whole nationbuilding thing in a place that has never been a nation is misplaced.

Except for having been the Durrani Empire from 1747 to 1823, when it became the Emirate of Afghanistan until 1919, at which point it became the Kingdom of Afghanistan from 1933 to 1973.

Other than all those times it was a nation, you're right, it's never been a nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:We more or less agree actually. Goin in in 2001 to beat up the Taliban was acceptalble, its trying to stay that doesnt work. Afghanistan swallowed up the Soviet army, something alot closer larger and meaner than anything we have got simply because when the Kremlin pulls their gloves off they really do come off. they still lost.

No, simply being meaner doesn't mean you win insurgencies, it only hurts your chances. The more violent and indiscriminant an occupying force is the more likely the general population will take up arms against them. While force is a necessarily element to maintain control, a resistance is beaten by removing legitimacy from the resistance.

You cant win a war against a religion, you can only skew the body count while staying in combat. its a vast game of whack-a-mole the arms will get tired long before the critters stop emerging.

It isn't a war against a religion. It's a war against a minority of fanatics/criminals. Remember that when the AQ and the Taliban were trounced at the start of the war there were 1,000 special forces directly used, the vast bulk of the fighting forces were Afghanis... because they really hated the Taliban. Unfortunately, we installed Karzai and he built a grossly corrupt administration, and while few like the Taliban they're unwilling to take up arms for Karzai.

Fateweaver wrote:I just don't see Obama keeping his promise about pulling out in 18 months.

He claimed to have Gitmo shut down by the end of this year and last I heard that won't happen, his HCR Bill won't get passed before the end of the year (not that I want it to pass at all in it's current state).

He has done nothing he's promised in the time he's promised it. I have friends apparently going over there in 2011 (according to their higher ups) so unless things change it will be like Iraq in that the men and women who should be here in the states (the NG for sure) will be sent on another "peace keeping mission" and be stuck in a country that they have no place in.

I've always wondered what a Democrat President would have done in response to the 9/11 attack.

It's impossible to know, of course.

Previous Democrat presidents faced with dangerous international crises include Woodrow Wilson, F D Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson.

If that creates any kind of precedent, perhaps a Democrat would have done all right.

Fateweaver wrote:I've always wondered what a Democrat President would have done in response to the 9/11 attack.

I'm going to go with 'not invaded Iraq'.

At least they would have got something right, then.

I seem to remember Obama, during the campaign to become president attacking Bush for doing the Iraqi troop surge.... but it worked there.

Also LOL to the Nobel Peace Prize judges.

Though a bit non-sequitur, with all the interest in planning and execution of conflicts I would be remiss if I didn't recommend "The Fog of War" documentary. It is a long interview with Robert McNamara about the thinking and planning behind and during the Vietnam conflict.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I seem to remember Obama, during the campaign to become president attacking Bush for doing the Iraqi troop surge.... but it worked there.

Also LOL to the Nobel Peace Prize judges.

So he's seen a good idea which worked and now he's copying it.

Kilkrazy wrote:So he's seen a good idea which worked and now he's copying it.

I assume WGs mockery is directed at the president's own hypocrisy. He bashes a strategy of GWB, but when he gets into office, "Hmm, it wasn't so bad." I approve of his using common sense on this issue, I can understand the frustration with a double standard.

To be fair, Obama changed his position on the surge well before entering office.

In case you you guys missed it, Mr. Gates discussed this whole "18 months" bit more. 18 months is the planned draw down time if "conditions are favorable". 10 months in is assessment time. To Obama's credit, he was very vague about the 18 months thing.

Back to jobs as a sign of the recession ending: A lot of the jobs will not come back. Companies have figured out how to permantly eliminate positions. Also due to the internetz people in other countries (i.e. those who will work for less cash money and benefits). This is a little idea called outsourcing. Anyway, don't look for the jobs to come back as a sign that the recession is over.

here's an interesting Planet Money post about the governments view in all this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/12/_how_much_would_pay.html