|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 6, 2010 20:50:31 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 6, 2010 20:53:22 GMT -5
I did not title the link. Whether it is murder is in the eye of the beholder. Knowing your position concerning war and that you had posted this link, with no further comments, leads one to believe that you were pretty much in agreement with it. Obviously you did not "title" the article but it fits your agenda to the topic! I didn't really want to let my own opinion become an influence on everyone else's judgement on this video, but most of you can probably guess my position, considering how I named this thread.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 7, 2010 1:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 7, 2010 3:26:37 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not. I will agree that goodwill needs to be developed in all wars. It has been an issue for the last 100+ years where some wars it has been more pronounced than it is in other wars. Yes, it only takes one "aw sh_t" to wipe out 1000 attaboys! You were in a war where there were plenty of mistakes along with some deliberate violations. Jdredd has a very rigid view of wars and they are all, in themselves, crimes. He tries to bring up various actions as further proof of "additional" crimes or violations where I point out that it isn't as clear as he would like to believe. In the "murder" video he posted, I do not see a clear violation or crime being committed. It is regrettable about the news media and the girls. I don't know why the media was at this location or what their mission was at that point. They appeared to be in a hazardous area if the others were armed combatants. The girls never should have been driven into the area by reasonable adults knowing that a firefight had ensued. But that is SOP for the insurgents to provide a message of killing children. They weren't even visible! I saw a crew who described a situation and sought permission to remedy it. Permission was granted. Some on other blogs have commented about the comments by the soldiers as being uncaring and derogatory towards the enemy. In the course of a firefight, one is not prone to be compassionate. Compassionate thoughts at that time can get one killed! The killing of the reporters definately was an "aw sh_t" but was procedures followed? Were these combatants that they were with? If so, they put themselves in a hazardous situation of which they could not be separately identified. The end result is that goodwill did deteriorate over this action. It does not matter if procedures were followed to the letter or not. As you well know and I have state before, combat is not a perfect science. And yet, our soldiers today have a lot less freedom to dispel the enemy than in previous wars. Regardless of the restrictions put upon them, fewer die in combat now than in previous actions AND because of those restrictions there are less "civilian" deaths by our troops than in the past. I think we are moving in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 7, 2010 19:49:49 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not.And Obama sure is making friends and winning hearts around the world. If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 8, 2010 1:03:21 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not.And Obama sure is making friends and winning hearts around the world. If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam. On a previous board when I suggested that enforcement only was perhaps not comprehensive enough to adequately solve the immigration problem I was told to move to Mexico. When I quoted the healthy kids survey as reasons to enact SB777 it was suggested to me that I should go join the homosexuals. Guess this is part of that great minds think alike thing. Do you have anything substantive to say about the idea? Is there something about Afghanistan that I am missing? Tell me what it is about McChrystals current strategy that you do not agree with or is this just your chance to take a shot at someone left of you? This is what I love about these boards is the chance for people with different viewpoints to share their thinking. I guess this is what makes this board superior to the others.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 8, 2010 10:48:12 GMT -5
And Obama sure is making friends and winning hearts around the world. If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam. On a previous board when I suggested that enforcement only was perhaps not comprehensive enough to adequately solve the immigration problem I was told to move to Mexico. When I quoted the healthy kids survey as reasons to enact SB777 it was suggested to me that I should go join the homosexuals. Guess this is part of that great minds think alike thing. Do you have anything substantive to say about the idea? Is there something about Afghanistan that I am missing? Tell me what it is about McChrystals current strategy that you do not agree with or is this just your chance to take a shot at someone left of you? This is what I love about these boards is the chance for people with different viewpoints to share their thinking. I guess this is what makes this board superior to the others. Get over the condescending lecture crap Larry, if I want someone telling me what group I belong in I’ll seek out creditable advice. Actually I did not want to insult you or point out your naiveté but you presented little to respond to, same sweeping generalities you’ve become famous for. Do you feel better having smited me?
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 8, 2010 14:57:15 GMT -5
"If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam. "
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by that. I will put the point back. I guess my karma has been dropping through some computer malfunction and that karmattacks are not something the conservatives relish doing.
I offered a couple of points for you to respond to:
The current commander in Afghanistan has changed tactics in order to reduce the civilian casualties with the idea that to win this conflict the Afghan people need to see Al-Qaeda and not the United States as the enemy. If this is naive than there is a lot of that going around.
The other point I offered was that the Arab world looks at things differently than we do and that difference is ingrained in both culture and language. Seems like understanding that is kind of important but probably just for the naive. Afghanistan has all the descriptors of another Viet Nam. Geography that limits the effects of our arsenal. Difficulty in telling the enemy from the citizens. A corrupt government that cannot be relied on that we need to rely on. A growing sense that the cost of winning the conflict exceeds it's value. If we ignore the Afghan people's perceptions and expectations than the conflict will last longer and will recruit more people to the cause of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Petraues was able to get the sunnis awakening council to join us in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. If we can do the same with the Taliban (or some portion) than we would see similar results. Is that naive?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Apr 8, 2010 20:09:46 GMT -5
"If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam. " I guess I misunderstood what you meant by that. I will put the point back. I guess my karma has been dropping through some computer malfunction and that karmattacks are not something the conservatives relish doing. I offered a couple of points for you to respond to: The current commander in Afghanistan has changed tactics in order to reduce the civilian casualties with the idea that to win this conflict the Afghan people need to see Al-Qaeda and not the United States as the enemy. If this is naive than there is a lot of that going around. The other point I offered was that the Arab world looks at things differently than we do and that difference is ingrained in both culture and language. Seems like understanding that is kind of important but probably just for the naive. Afghanistan has all the descriptors of another Viet Nam. Geography that limits the effects of our arsenal. Difficulty in telling the enemy from the citizens. A corrupt government that cannot be relied on that we need to rely on. A growing sense that the cost of winning the conflict exceeds it's value. If we ignore the Afghan people's perceptions and expectations than the conflict will last longer and will recruit more people to the cause of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Petraues was able to get the sunnis awakening council to join us in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. If we can do the same with the Taliban (or some portion) than we would see similar results. Is that naive? It is naive. Not the current administrations fault or the previous it is the fault of the western mind. It's not going to happen. I agree in part, the recruitment aspect is western mind limitation, it does not matter. I feel deeply for the Afghan people some of the most gentle people I've ever know, but we can't help them. Their destiny began before America's birth. I’m probably not in the “we” category, see I got a good handle of the thought process, thus my earlier comment, perhaps flippant to you but very true to how the “not we” think. Everything you said is reasonable and logical to the western mind, but IMO that’s where you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 9, 2010 19:11:17 GMT -5
"If YOU want to win the heart and mind convert to Islam. " I guess I misunderstood what you meant by that. I will put the point back. I guess my karma has been dropping through some computer malfunction and that karmattacks are not something the conservatives relish doing. I offered a couple of points for you to respond to: The current commander in Afghanistan has changed tactics in order to reduce the civilian casualties with the idea that to win this conflict the Afghan people need to see Al-Qaeda and not the United States as the enemy. If this is naive than there is a lot of that going around. The other point I offered was that the Arab world looks at things differently than we do and that difference is ingrained in both culture and language. Seems like understanding that is kind of important but probably just for the naive. Afghanistan has all the descriptors of another Viet Nam. Geography that limits the effects of our arsenal. Difficulty in telling the enemy from the citizens. A corrupt government that cannot be relied on that we need to rely on. A growing sense that the cost of winning the conflict exceeds it's value. If we ignore the Afghan people's perceptions and expectations than the conflict will last longer and will recruit more people to the cause of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Petraues was able to get the sunnis awakening council to join us in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. If we can do the same with the Taliban (or some portion) than we would see similar results. Is that naive? It is naive. Not the current administrations fault or the previous it is the fault of the western mind. It's not going to happen. I agree in part, the recruitment aspect is western mind limitation, it does not matter. I feel deeply for the Afghan people some of the most gentle people I've ever know, but we can't help them. Their destiny began before America's birth. I’m probably not in the “we” category, see I got a good handle of the thought process, thus my earlier comment, perhaps flippant to you but very true to how the “not we” think. Everything you said is reasonable and logical to the western mind, but IMO that’s where you are wrong. I think that is where the idea is wrong. Winning the hearts and minds is the only way to create any kind of lasting change. I agree with you that it just does not seem like there is any way to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda without risking the kind of collateral damage that causes you to lose whatever hearts and minds you won previously. Worst yet is that the longer we are in Afghanistan the less stable Pakistan seems to become. Loose nukes there would be the worst possible scenario. The plan in place is logical it is the problem that defies logic. The idea that fermented under the Bush administration for a quasi-democratic state to replace Saddams regime that was also pro-western had a lot of upside. The idea itself if manifested would have done much to change the way the middle east looks. Iran would be further isolated and the moderate states like Jordan would have replaced a threat with a potential ally. Sadly the only thing that united sunni and shia was the fighting. But the likelihood of creating a stable ally in Iraq (benefited by hindsight) was really low.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 10, 2010 3:44:20 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not. I will admit my perception of what is or is not a war crime is probably much broader than most people's. "Free fire zones" is one of them. I do agree that winning the "hearts and minds" is essential in any counter-insurgency. While "leveling the place" is an emotionally satisfying concept to some, it has no basis in real life. The sad fact is we really don't have any idea what "winning" is in the Middle East, other than some fantasy about lots of "friendly" governments there. Unfortunately, they have their own agendas, which includes ancient factional antagonisms, and looking for payback or an eye-for-an-eye. Not to mention hatred of Israel. I'm waiting to see if Obama really has the balls to leave Afghanistan in 2011, and finish baling out of Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Apr 10, 2010 15:29:05 GMT -5
During a discussion outside of class a student once asked me about war crimes. He thought that Saddam was guilty of a war crime because he ordered the use of chemical weapons on people he knew were not soldiers. He said that was where his clarity about what a war crime is ended. If there are bullets leaving the barrels of a number of weapons at the same time which bullets represent a crime and which do not. In terms of Afghanistan and even Iraq the perceptions are as important as the reality. In the arab language the verb comes first. The action taken is as significant as the results. We can build goodwill for a month of Sunday's and it only takes a few civilian casualties to ruin any goodwill generated. But if we are to prevail we need to win the hearts and the minds whether we like it or not. I will admit my perception of what is or is not a war crime is probably much broader than most people's. "Free fire zones" is one of them. I do agree that winning the "hearts and minds" is essential in any counter-insurgency. While "leveling the place" is an emotionally satisfying concept to some, it has no basis in real life. The sad fact is we really don't have any idea what "winning" is in the Middle East, other than some fantasy about lots of "friendly" governments there. Unfortunately, they have their own agendas, which includes ancient factional antagonisms, and looking for payback or an eye-for-an-eye. Not to mention hatred of Israel. I'm waiting to see if Obama really has the balls to leave Afghanistan in 2011, and finish baling out of Iraq. Winning the war in Afghanistan will require the people to be involved in the solution. While they struggle between who they think is less evil, the U.S. or Al Qaida or Taliban, they actually look more on the economic issue. Who will give them work to put food on their table? In this case, Al Qaida and the Taliban generally have the support by the general population while the government enjoys the financial support from the U.S. Of course, there is also the "bullying" from Al Qaida and the Taliban as well. The threat that the will not be allowed to receive help from the U.S. Protecting the people as we provide support for them is extremely difficult for the most part. We need to turn the tide with the people but their government are not so helpful as they don't want to see the U.S. complete their mission and leave. We are their great caretaker. We are also ripe for the raping by their government as many are probably corruptly putting away unauthorized funds for their personal gains. We often give other countries money with little oversight on where the money is used and if it all gets to where it needs to go. Another reason supported governments often do not want us to leave until the U.S. becomes a political liability. What is the defined "mission completed" for Afghanistan? If we can stop attacks and the government is self supporting, their economy comes back (what little they have), are we finished? Does Afghanistan revert or continue to produce opium? Our focus on Al Qaida and the Taliban goes where? Does the Taliban merge back into the government? What of Al Qaida, Pakistan has been doing a lot lately will they do enough? We are not permited to enter Pakistan for purpose of battling Al Qaida, so what do we do while awaiting Pakistan to complete the job? Can or will Pakistan complete the job? What do we do to contain Al Qaida while Pakistan continues attacking them? Do we focus on Al Qaida in Africa next? What level do we need to assume to insure the security of our citizens, not just in the U.S., but as they travel too! It is said that "most" in the U.S. are tired of the wars and want to bring our troops home. It seems that the public no longer has the stomach to read of those killed abroad. Will it take more and sustained attacks in the U.S. to change them? Or will they just become passified and ignore the attacks as long as "THEY" are not put out of watching their favorite nightly TV programs!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 13, 2010 12:51:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 13, 2010 12:54:21 GMT -5
"What is the defined "mission completed" for Afghanistan? If we can stop attacks and the government is self supporting, their economy comes back (what little they have), are we finished? Does Afghanistan revert or continue to produce opium? Our focus on Al Qaida and the Taliban goes where? Does the Taliban merge back into the government? What of Al Qaida, Pakistan has been doing a lot lately will they do enough? We are not permited to enter Pakistan for purpose of battling Al Qaida, so what do we do while awaiting Pakistan to complete the job? Can or will Pakistan complete the job? What do we do to contain Al Qaida while Pakistan continues attacking them? Do we focus on Al Qaida in Africa next?"
All good questions. And if I knew the answers, maybe I'd have an income.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Apr 13, 2010 13:46:49 GMT -5
Refocused fighting is a must to make any gains in winning over the population. Good economic structure building is another major obstacle to overcome which means food crops in place of opium which is seemingly unreasonable from a pure economic view...one has to sell a whole lot more tomatoes to make the same acre profits... So basically a population that is already sold to the devil is not likely to tend the Lord's Crops!
If the CIA has a selective hit list and it prevents mass collateral damage and death to civillians then why is this so bad JD? Does it not address both issues...
|
|