Re: Petraeus Tightens Rules of Engagement
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lwrkeysfisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">Interestingly, in the last war we really won we hammered the enemy day and night and even nuked 'em--we forced the citizenry to comply we to did not ask them too, we did not win their hearts and minds we broke their fucking backs. Maybe one day we'll understand this lesson and apply it to the current conflicts.</span>
My guess is that SunTzu would agree that there is no winning of hearts and minds just compelling them by the utilization of brute force and the threat of anhilation. When I hear this type of language coming from someone at the top I'll know the tide has changed, until then I can only watch in horror and pray for our men. </div></div>
No way. The last war we won? Are you kidding me? First Gulf War? Iraq? A selective remembering of history only compounds the problem here. "Forcing the citizenry to bend to our will?" Mao, Hitler, and Stalin all gave orders like that, and I'd much rather lose a war than sink to that kind of depravity. Your response reads like satire, but I'm pretty sure you're being literal.
Promoting the use of atomic weapons nonchalantly is just asinine, especially in that region of the world. If you thought 9/11 was a bad attack, just wait until we nuke a Muslim nation. We'll have suicide bombers in our malls and museums within 3 months, and a suitcase nuke in a major city would be a matter of time.
You do realize that 9/11 happened because the Taliban offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, right? The Taliban took power around 1994 by eliminating warlords and terrifying everyone who stood in their path. The Taliban are primarily a Pashtun movement, which is why few Baluchis, Hazaris, Uzbeks, and Tajiks join their cause. It's not like the Taliban even have majority support. Far from it. But we keep alienating the population with stray bombs and 155s when we need the people to stand against the Taliban. You're the only one painting the Afghan people as the enemy here, and frankly, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to make such a nuanced, complex war into black and white. This isn't WWII, and they aren't Nazi Germany.
Sun Tzu would use the Taliban's vicious record ruling Afghanistan against them and would galvanize the population through propaganda and information campaigns, thereby denying the Taliban safe haven, support, and recruitment opportunities. Gaining solid intelligence is one of the primary components to victory, and COIN is a critical recruitment vehicle for us to have spies watching and reporting on the Taliban. Civilians can also serve as early warning indicators for IEDs, ambushes, and future attacks if they are on our side. You'd do better to cite Genghis Khan, he's more your style, but as far as I know, we aren't trying to spread our empire like Khan was.
The debate we should be having is whether Afghanistan is worth the time and money we're putting into it, not whether we agree with the rules of engagement. </div></div>
What was it again that we won from the first gulph war and from Iraq?
The Mao and Hitler comparison, while dramatic, is shit. Those names invoke memories of atrocities, and are good for shutting people down who dont want to be viewed harshly, much like calling someone a racist. Its a good politicaly correct door slam in the face, but means nothing in this instance.
I think you do actually know that he wasnt advocating ruling our country, or expanding our "empire" by breaking the citizens backs. What I understood from his post was that we are waging war upon these people, and brutal war is what they should get. Let the victory be swift and complete so we can get back to our peacetime slumber.