Democrat Jim Moran says US military cannot win the war in Afghanistan

[cartouch100]

HEADLINE: Democrat Jim Moran says US military cannot win the war in Afghanistan




OVERVIEW: Democrat congressman Jim Moran from Virginia declares that the US military is not capable of winning against some primitive Taliban terrorist hiding in their caves in Afghanistan!



LINK: http://www.examiner.com/american-po...ys-us-military-cannot-win-the-war-afghanistan

 

[myp]

It really depends on how one defines "win." The argument that we can't win it is there- sure we have a much larger and sophisticated army, but hunting down people hidden all over the place can be a hard thing. Just look at what happened to the British during the American revolution.

Personally, I think we should get over this notion of "winning" or "losing" and start to withdraw troops from Afghanistan (and Iraq) so that we can start worrying about our bigger domestic problems first.

 

[WillypHD]

I disagree with you Myp. The United States must finish what its started. We cannot go around starting wars if we are going to one day say "eh its not important anymore, lets go home" Terrorists need to be stopped or they will continue to kill inoccent people and terrorize the world.

I think we have made great strides in the war. The application of drone planes to take down high value targets has been an extreamly effective move, and I comend President Obama on doing it.

Furthermore, I am very proud of our military and congressman Moran should be ashamed of saying that our military is not capable of winning! Who's team is he on anyways?

 

[obtuseobserver]

It really depends on how one defines "win." The argument that we can't win it is there- sure we have a much larger and sophisticated army, but hunting down people hidden all over the place can be a hard thing. Just look at what happened to the British during the American revolution.

The Red Coats did not have helicopters, Humvees, radar, satellite communications, missiles, drones, night vision etc etc

The terrain sucks ass. The strategy of counter-insurrgency goes like this; secure the population centers and clear them of resistence, establish control and protect the noncombatants, push the combatants from the population centers, secure and hold... then run search and destroy missions until the enemy is no longer able or willing to fight. The terrain will complicate things but seizing choke points in roads and holding thewm will help attrite the Taliban.

Personally, I think we should get over this notion of "winning" or "losing" and start to withdraw troops from Afghanistan (and Iraq) so that we can start worrying about our bigger domestic problems first.

What bigger problems will our troops be addressing at home? Preventing future 9/11s by destroying those who would launch another is a pretty good use of our troops isn't it?

 

[myp]

I disagree with you Myp. The United States must finish what its started. We cannot go around starting wars if we are going to one day say "eh its not important anymore, lets go home" Terrorists need to be stopped or they will continue to kill inoccent people and terrorize the world.

It is arguable whether or not we have finished what we started and what exactly constitutes "finish." The costs and bodies keep piling- remember that.

Furthermore, I am very proud of our military and congressman Moran should be ashamed of saying that our military is not capable of winning! Who's team is he on anyways?

I am very proud of our troops as well and we owe them everything. That does not however mean we should keep fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought.

The Red Coats did not have helicopters, Humvees, radar, satellite communications, missiles, drones, night vision etc etc

And that's why we found Osama? I am sorry, but it is still possible for us to lose wars.

The terrain sucks ass. The strategy of counter-insurrgency goes like this; secure the population centers and clear them of resistence, establish control and protect the noncombatants, push the combatants from the population centers, secure and hold... then run search and destroy missions until the enemy is no longer able or willing to fight. The terrain will complicate things but seizing choke points in roads and holding thewm will help attrite the Taliban.

What bigger problems will our troops be addressing at home? Preventing future 9/11s by destroying those who would launch another is a pretty good use of our troops isn't it?

That's all fine, but it is all about costs and opportunity costs. With our deficits the way they are, I believe that it would be more beneficial if we cut those extra expenses, sparred some lives, and ended the wars. Morally and financially it makes sense. As for another 9/11- I believe in a strong defense as opposed to a scattered offense. We can't go galavanting half way across the world every time there "might" be a threat because those threats will exist everyday. Furthermore, the argument stands that our occupation of so many other countries leads to further hatred towards us and an increase in threats- Robert Pape wrote a great piece on that a while back that I suggest anyone interested in the war read. As for what the troops can do at home? Again, help strengthen the defense as well as perhaps secure our own borders instead of the ones between Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.

edit: Note that I fully supported going after the perpetrators after 9/11, I just think our mission there is now finished.

 

[obtuseobserver]

And that's why we found Osama? I am sorry, but it is still possible for us to lose wars.

It is possible for us to lose wars but that's not what I was talking about.

I was saying our technology makes our army very different from all others; ever.

If we never captured OBL and Afganistan became as tranquil as say Poland would that be a loss?

It is certainly embarassing that we haven't captured OBL but we've caged him up and he's had little to crow about for the past decade.

That's all fine, but it is all about costs and opportunity costs. With our deficits the way they are, I believe that it would be more beneficial if we cut those extra expenses, sparred some lives, and ended the wars.

Presumes that there would be a savings and seems to presume that the region no longer poses a threat to us and our allies. What's the opportunity cost for failing to prevent another 9/11? Blood and treasure are certainly central issues to consider but we are fighting very low intensity war now.

Morally and financially it makes sense.

See above. How much would you pay to avoid another 9/11? This if we left the region that we'd be able to shift resources (in large scale) away from the region? Do you think terrorists would use the region to plot and conduct more attacks? Is it moral to turn our back on the region while it is so unstable in light of thge fact that we helped unstabiulize it (not that it was terribly stable before) and that our departure would certainly energize the Taliban who've now begun focusing on the Pakistani arsenal as a goal?

As for another 9/11- I believe in a strong defense as opposed to a scattered offense.

Clarify.

We are fighting a very low intensity war in Afganistan. That's pretty much it. How is that scattered offense? I believe that in some cases offense is defense. As here. We are fighting there to prevent them from coming back here.

We can't go galavanting half way across the world every time there "might" be a threat because those threats will exist everyday.

Sure. But Afginistgan wasn't a maybe. Still isn't.

Furthermore, the argument stands that our occupation of so many other countries leads to further hatred towards us and an increase in threats- Robert Pape wrote a great piece on that a while back that I suggest anyone interested in the war read.

OK. So far being more antagonistic has yielded ZERO more terrorist attacks like the Cole, Khobar, Beirut, Emassies, 9/11. If occupying Afganistan and Iraq (the only two I am aware we've moved into in the last decade - in one of which we arew drawing down our forces) made more people hate us it also prevented more attacks. So, if others hating us means les dead Americans I support it.

Besides... given the argument that more hate = more threat and the facts that prior we had many attacks and after we've had none doesn't the argument seem flawed? The fact is this, in war it is better to be feared than loved. If that were not true Switzerland, Canada and Finland would be the world powers and no one would care about China or Russia. It ain't pretty but it is true. Think of OBL and his strong horse v weak horse.

As for what the troops can do at home? Again, help strengthen the defense

defense of what? troops cannot be deployed on native soil - that's illegal

as well as perhaps secure our own borders instead of the ones between Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.

The administration hasn't shown much interest in such a policy when they sue states who try to secure the border. And see above.

edit: Note that I fully supported going after the perpetrators after 9/11, I just think our mission there is now finished.

why?

as you noted - we don't have OBL

 

[myp]

I was saying our technology makes our army very different from all others; ever.

Certainly, but it still doesn't make invincible against any army, no matter how bad their weapons are. Sometimes strategy and placing just wins out- just ask Russia, they've outdone armies several times their size and more advanced many times throughout their history all thanks to their cold winter.

If we never captured OBL and Afganistan became as tranquil as say Poland would that be a loss?

It is certainly embarassing that we haven't captured OBL but we've caged him up and he's had little to crow about for the past decade.

He's had little to crow about- exactly.

Presumes that there would be a savings and seems to presume that the region no longer poses a threat to us and our allies. What's the opportunity cost for failing to prevent another 9/11? Blood and treasure are certainly central issues to consider but we are fighting very low intensity war now.

A "low intensity" war that still costs billions we don't have and thousands of lives. I personally don't think what we are doing there right now for the large part is preventing another 9/11.

See above. How much would you pay to avoid another 9/11? This if we left the region that we'd be able to shift resources (in large scale) away from the region? Do you think terrorists would use the region to plot and conduct more attacks? Is it moral to turn our back on the region while it is so unstable in light of thge fact that we helped unstabiulize it (not that it was terribly stable before) and that our departure would certainly energize the Taliban who've now begun focusing on the Pakistani arsenal as a goal?

I am not saying we should just leave it over night, but a gradual (and much quicker) pullout should be conducted now. It is time to start wrapping it up in my opinion. As for preventing another 9/11, I say we leave Afghanistan, leave the Middle East, and leave a few other places- I think that would greatly help our image and stop another 9/11. How? Please do check out this: http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

Clarify.

We are fighting a very low intensity war in Afganistan. That's pretty much it. How is that scattered offense? I believe that in some cases offense is defense. As here. We are fighting there to prevent them from coming back here.

Our troops are getting spread thing between Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were to be attacked by a country like N. Korea or Iran or whoever, we would have serious issues with supplying troops in such a defensive war. Our troops in many cases have also been kept in Iraq/Afghanistan much longer than they were supposed to be- it is not fair to them, nor is it good for their mental health.

OK. So far being more antagonistic has yielded ZERO more terrorist attacks like the Cole, Khobar, Beirut, Emassies, 9/11. If occupying Afganistan and Iraq (the only two I am aware we've moved into in the last decade - in one of which we arew drawing down our forces) made more people hate us it also prevented more attacks. So, if others hating us means les dead Americans I support it.

Interesting that you bring some of those up. Check out the link I posted above.

Besides... given the argument that more hate = more threat and the facts that prior we had many attacks and after we've had none doesn't the argument seem flawed? The fact is this, in war it is better to be feared than loved. If that were not true Switzerland, Canada and Finland would be the world powers and no one would care about China or Russia. It ain't pretty but it is true. Think of OBL and his strong horse v weak horse.

The problem is even in peace they hated us. And they told us so all along- we just didn't listen. Again, I refer you to Pape's article.

defense of what? troops cannot be deployed on native soil - that's illegal

I don't mean deployments, but just as reserves as they usually would be. And when I say defense, I mean we should focus more of our energy on preventing wars through information than starting preemptive wars just in case.

The administration hasn't shown much interest in such a policy when they sue states who try to secure the border. And see above.

The troops don't have to be fighting or deployed anywhere then. See above.

why?

as you noted - we don't have OBL

I think his threat is done. Again, we can stay in a limited role to make sure the Afghani government isn't overthrown, but when it comes to OBL they want him as well and if he turns up they will likely turn him over anyway. Again, in a perfect world it'd be great to have OBL and keep the goose chase on forever with no costs. But there are costs in the real world and I don't think its justified.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Certainly, but it still doesn't make invincible against any army, no matter how bad their weapons are. Sometimes strategy and placing just wins out- just ask Russia, they've outdone armies several times their size and more advanced many times throughout their history all thanks to their cold winter.

You're reference to the Russian Army is not strong on fact. While true that the scortched earth policy prevented Napoleon from holding Moscow the cold effected his retreat after taking Moscow.... the cold killed Napoleon's retreating soldiers because they retreated 1) through lands that the Russians scortched, and 2) that the Grande Armee and the Polish Army had plundered the countryside on their way east. It is a fairly important thing to note. But for supply line issues that he would have solved with an airforce, he could have held Moscow. The Russians were pushed back because the Soviets moved their entire manufacturing infrastructure east of the Urals and by 1943 was making tanks and planes faster than the Germans could shoot them out of the sky or blow them up. It wasn't cold... it was the Russian Steamroller.

The Russian Army throughout its history has been noted for its ponderous size. It has, afaik, NEVER been out numbered. There's an old joke about the Russian Army having more soldiers than their enemies had bullets.

"Invincible" No one is arguing that we are. I made note that the comparison to the Red Coats was not on point and why.

It is possible to lose in Afganistan but that is a choice not an inevitability. Cost may well make it a necessary choice but it would still be a choice.

He's had little to crow about- exactly.

You seemed to be noting our failure to capture him as evidence of our failure?

And that's why we found Osama? I am sorry, but it is still possible for us to lose wars.

Did I miss your point?

A "low intensity" war that still costs billions we don't have and thousands of lives.

We've lost 1273 since the war began. Not thousands.

Cost is always an issue. See the use of drones (flown, I am told, out of SD)

I personally don't think what we are doing there right now for the large part is preventing another 9/11.

Do you think if we leave that the region will again become ripe for another attack or do you think they'll just go about their business and forget about us?

If you think the former then you cannot deny that we are preventing future attacks.

If you believe the latter I think your view is naive.

I am not saying we should just leave it over night, but a gradual (and much quicker) pullout should be conducted now. It is time to start wrapping it up in my opinion. As for preventing another 9/11, I say we leave Afghanistan, leave the Middle East, and leave a few other places- I think that would greatly help our image and stop another 9/11.

We weren't in any of those places before but we got 9/11 anyway. It does not follow that leaving will result in those who mean us (and who have caused us) great harm will suddenly turn warm and abandon efforts to harm us.

your link... I find it hard to accept anyone telling me that if we don't leave now they'll really hate us. Was 9/11 a love letter? No. So, us being there or not, they hate us enough to kill us. Staying and killing terrorists make sense to me on that basis.

Our troops are getting spread thing between Iraq and Afghanistan.

This was true 6 years ago. It is not so much right now.

About 150k with 98k in Afganistan and Iraq drawing down. We have over half a million men in our army alone.

If we were to be attacked by a country like N. Korea or Iran or whoever, we would have serious issues with supplying troops in such a defensive war.

Where would these guys be attacking us? The USS Geo. Washington battle group is in the area of NK. We'd have little problem reducing them to grease stains. The issue isn't whether, but how many NK soldiers we kill. I've spoken to this point quite a few times.

Iran... they have engaged us and they have lost... badly. Further, we have 150,000 troops on either side of her borders. They have about 600,000 total in their armed services. Their Navy will not engage ours nor with their airforce. Iran would present larger challenges than NK but again, we can get carrier groups in the area very quickly in support of other assets currently their.

I don't think your opinions consider the facts and circumstances here so much as a personal preference. Which is fine. But your concern that NK and Iran would send us intoa tizzy is misplaced.

Our troops in many cases have also been kept in Iraq/Afghanistan much longer than they were supposed to be- it is not fair to them, nor is it good for their mental health.

Interestingly enough my sister-in-law is a VA counselor for veterans from both wars. Yes, what you say is true, but this is true of any war and when you consider the extremely low intensity this factor, while valid, is not a major issue.

The problem is even in peace they hated us. And they told us so all along- we just didn't listen. Again, I refer you to Pape's article.

And I again note that while we did not occupy those areas we had those attacks. While we did occupy those areas we did not get hit. The hate factor was present before 9/11. Suggesting that if we don't leave they'll hate us more is silly. They hated us enough before as you note. Now they can hate us even more if they wish but they haven't been able to harm us.

You can't really argue that leaving would soften their hearts with a straight face.

 

[Dirk]

If you do destroy the Taliban completely, it does not mean victory. It is already lost. Thousands of soldiers, lost. Tens of thousands of civilians, lost. Tens of thousands of Taliban (and allies), lost. That is not a victory. War is not won, it is just variation on how badly you have lost.