Opinion on the 'War on Terror'

DoireNod

Mods, apologies in advance if this has been done before.

I'm curious as to people's opinion on the 'War on Terror'. Is it necessary, warranted or whatever? I know there are many posters out there who are very vocal in their support of war and this war in particular, while there are others who are completely opposed to it, so I thought that maybe a thread for the discussion of it would be welcomed. Hopefully there can be some reasonable discussion.

Fratton Fred

Could you be a bit more specific in what you classify as the war on terror, or are you just trying to lump in every war the US has been involved in since 9/11

DoireNod

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Could you be a bit more specific in what you classify as the war on terror, or are you just trying to lump in every war the US has been involved in since 9/11

Isn't that what 'The War on Terror' is?

Zambia

I would be with Fred here need to pin piont the question.

The "war on terror" IMO is a crock of horse **** as well as statements like the war on crime, the war on want etc.

To declare war on something you have to have a clear objective ,Terror is not an entity that can surrender or be destroyed like an opposing nation.

In essence its just big lad talk.

"Terror" was always opposed by declaring war on terror surely that implies not enough was being done towards tackling it in the first place. A fact I would dispute, I reckon the FBI would agree.

Terrorism and Terrorists should be left to police and Intelligence agencys.

However if a state sponsors the training of terrorists their regime would IMO be a legitimate target for the anger of any state their actions affect. So I would still support the Afghan action.

However I notice the saying went away with Bush

Manic Moran

DoireNod wrote: »

Isn't that what 'The War on Terror' is?

The Army awards the GWOTEM (GWOT Expeditionary Medal) for service in the following AOs.

The complete listing of areas of eligibility (AOE) are: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria (Bourgas), Chad, Columbia, Crete, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo (only specified GWOT operations not associated with operations qualifying for the Kosovo Campaign Medal), Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Romania (Constanta), Saudia Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, that portion of the Arabian Sea north of 10 degrees north latitude and west of 68 degrees longitude, Bab El Mandeb, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Aqaba, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Suez, that portion of the Mediterranean Sea east of 28 degrees east longitude (“boarding and searching” vessel operations), Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Strait of Hormuz and Suez Canal

NTM

concussion

Bloody hell, to think I spent a week in Cyprus this year!!!!

Zambia

concussion wrote: »

Bloody hell, to think I spent a week in Cyprus this year!!!!

What do you want ...a medal?;)

JoeJC

I think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by America, Britain etc. was fundamentally unjust. I believe grave crimes and atrocities have been committed not only by Islamic militants but by the Coalition forces in the middle east in the last 6 years.

Although I love America I do not think it has the right to abuse the world's right to freedom by playing the role of international policeman. I think the US and western world is now a more dangerous place and despite what media or government claim, I believe that the West has more enemies now than before this War on Terror.

neilled

A few thoughts of my own on the matter..........

With the George W. Bush Administration now gone, is the “War on Terror” now defunct?

As the Presidency of George W. Bush came to an end there was a discernible hope amongst commentators and members of the public across the world that no matter which candidate emerged victorious in the 2008 Presidential Election, he or she would move to “wipe the slate clean”1 thus ending what an era of what some have viewed as an unprecedented era of unilateral action by the United States of America.

Within a month of the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11th 2009, and the then President George W. Bush made a number of speeches which would define what would be known as the War on Terror. In address to congress on September 20th he noted that the the “war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”2 A few weeks latter on October 7th President Bush ordered the commencement of military operations in Afghanistan and noted in his Presidential Address made on the same day that the events in Afghanistan were part of a wider “campaign against terrorism” noting that whilst the focus was on “Afghanistan at present”, the scope of this war was “broader” and that “in this conflict there is no neutral ground”3. In the words of some critics the President had ushered in an era where the sweeping concept of “of open ended global war” and the acceptance Pre-emptive strikes strikes in order to maintain the security of the United States became accepted after the events of 9/11.

The events that consisted of the war saw international coalitions led by the US invade Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, with the toppling of the the Taleban and the Ba'ath party respectively. Whilst these conflicts were the most prominent commitments of US troops overseas in recent years, it is worth noting that US Special Forces have been deployed in over 19 countries4 (many of which have or are experiencing Islamic insurgencies) on “white” operations, which involve providing training and support to local forces, normally in the area of counterinsurgency. Whilst noting this, commentators have also pointed out that “there is little doubt that with the Pentagons stated goal of hunting down terrorists, black special operators are or will be active in many of the same countries”5 that is to say taking part in operations which the results and outcomes of would be denied by the US government should they be discovered.

George W. Bush's sucessor, Barrack Obama has ordered his staff to abandon the term and in a recent email instructed pentagon officials that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror”6, preferring to use the phrase, “overseas contingency operations” instead. It would seem that on the surface that the Global War on Terror is gone with a simple instruction from the President, but to asses whether or not the Global War on Terror is truly defunct, the pattern of events that defined the War on Terror must be assessed within the broader context of US foreign policy objectives since and in particular, those that have existed the end of the Cold War.

When the Cold War ended the bipolar system that had characterised it collapsed rapidly as the Soviet Union disintegrated. Many different visions for a world after the cold war had been made, in particular the emergence of a new multi polar world order where new countries would rise to the fore in international affairs filling the power void left by the Soviet Union. These countries consisted of China, and Japan but in particular the European Union, yet the predicted changes did not happen. Rather than looking to capitalise on the fall of the soviet Union and turn itself into “the nexx superpower not only economically, politically but also militarily”7 the EU preferred to pay itself what has been commonly referred to as a Peace Dividend which saw a large scale restructuring and down sizing of military forces in Western Europe during the mid 1990's and the resultant savings being transferred to bolstering social and economic programmes.

This void left the US in the position of being the single dominant power, and policy makers within the US responded to the new environment by setting out their vision for a Unipolar future. A number of themes emerged from commentators, think tank and policy makers. Amongst these themes was the emergence of the threat from what Charles Krathammer described as a “new strategic environment marked by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”8 and the development of the “Weapon State”, where by “relatively small, peripheral and backward states” (with a tendency to be oil producers) were predicted to emerge as threats to both regional and world security as early as 1990. Indeed throughout the mid 1990's Iraq (one of the regimes toppled during the Global War on Terror) was identified by numerous commentators and in particular members of the think tank, “The Project for a New American Century” including John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz and as a threat and wrote numerous articles from 1998 onwards with such titles as “Adrift in the Gulf”, “Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough”, and “A Way to Oust Saddam,”9 stressing the threat of the Ba'ath regime in Iraq and urged and subsequently criticised the then President, Bill Clinton for failing to topple it. It is worth noting that both Bolton and Wolfowitz amongst other members of this think tank would occupy high profile positions within the Administration of George W. Bush, with Bolton becoming Ambassador to the UN whilst Wolfowitz occupied the position of Deputy Secretary of Defence.

These ideas finally began to be implimented when President George W. Bush assumed the Presidency in 2001. Shortly after his inaugurationm, on February 6th 2001 the president announced that the US “would resume fuding of opposition efforts in Iraq for the first time since 1996”10 including the Iraqi National Congress. This pattern continued with plans drawn up for arial strikes and proposals to fund an insurgency against Saddam or to replace him with another leader.

It would however be the events of September 11th 2001 provided a catalyst for regime change in Iraq. The response from the administration was to capitalise on the attack with National Security Advisor Condelezza Rice asking her staff “how do you capitalize on these opportunities” there by managing to “fundamentally change American doctrine, and the shape of the world, in the wake of September 11th.”11 Other members of the administration were more direct such as the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld who within 48 hours of the attack had ordered his staff to gather “ The Best info fast” and judge whether not it was good enough to hit Saddam Hussein “at the same time”, with the additional command that they should “Go massive, sweep it all up. Things related and not”12 . Within weeks of the attack, the Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United States' key ally, the United Kingdom, had been informed that once “once we have dealt with Afghanistan we must come back to Iraq.”13

Taking these events into consideration it is reasonable to conclude that the use of the term “Global War on Terror” when dealing with Iraq merely became a framework for incorporating well defined US foreign policy objectives against the backdrop of the war the US ended up fighting in Afghanistan.

Some of the other key charges made by critics of the Global War on Terror is that since the onset of the War in 2001, US policy has been has characterised by a unilateral approach with the result that it has been“less inclined to work through international institutions such as the United Nations”14 in order to resolve disputes and that the war has seen the growth of unscrutinized executive power, through the expansion and use of Special Forces to prosecute the war.

When assessing this view it is important to note tendency for preventative unilateral action as a means to achieve American foreign policy objective dates back further than the Global War on terror, stretching back to the Cold war where earlier Presidents reserved the right to act unilaterally and in some cases actively did so on a number of occasions.

Some of the most notable examples include Vietnam where the US Presidents ignored French and British advice and “moved ahead with their Vietnam venture, more or less unilaterally”15, and during the blockade of Cuba in 1962. It should be noted though that these unilateral interventions were pragmatic and not based on a dogmatic adherence to pre-emptive and preventative actions, as attacks of such nature on the other great power of the day, the Soviet Union were considered “impractical and suicidal”16 with casualties of 30 million or above expected in the event of a Soviet counter attack. In more recent years other US Presidents have engaged in other preventative and unilateral actions with Bill Clinton reserving the right to do what was necessary to defend “these interests, including—when necessary—using our military might unilaterally and decisively” 17 The increased US intervention outside of its own borders since the cold war may also be attributed to the relative decline of other powers. As mentioned earlier, the European Union downsized its forces, leading to the expectation in some quarters that the US could and should intervene when it seen its interests at stake.

The War on Terror also seen the growth in Special Forces in the US, under the auspices of SOCOM or special operations command, with the “Quadrennial Defense Review” stating that “Special Operations Forces would be leading the war on terror”18 marking a switch away from traditional agencies charged with battling terrorism like the CIA. It is notable that 1991 intelligence authorization act which governs congressional scrutiny of covert operations does not cover “traditional military activities” meaning that there is debate as to whether operations carried out by Special Forces are subject to the scrutiny of the intelligence committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The importance of this grey area cannot be over estimated. United States SOCOM has some 50,000 personnel from front line combat units to support and logistics elements at its disposal. In context, it should be understood that the number of special forces units troops the US that the executive has control over and subjected to relatively low levels of oversight is greater than the number of full time troops available for service in a number of NATO and PFP countries.

Since beginning of “The Global War on Terror” the budget allocated to special forces has increased drastically with the budget increasing from from just over $2 billion since the start of the war on terror, to $ 5.1 billion in 2007. Despite the dropping of the term “Global War on Terror”, President Obama has expanded the special forces budget even further, allocating “ $5.7 billion for the United States Special Operations Command to continue training and equipping its forces to respond to future requirements to address a wider spectrum of potential threats.”19 Furthermore President Obama has also allowed the trend of his predecessor to strike at targets seem hostile to US interests authorising a number of missile attacks by unmanned “predator” spy planes inside Pakistan on January 23rd 200920, and looks to set to continue the trend set by other US leaders, by leaving some 50,000 troops in Iraq21, even after the “withdrawal” plan authorised by him is complete.

In conclusion, although the terminology of “The Global War on Terror” is now defunct, the future is not yet certain. Fighting the “Global War on Terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan has put repeated pressure on the military forces of the United States and its Allies due to casualties in both men and expensive equipment. Repeated combat tours of duty, have damaged recruitment levels and the financial capacity to maintain operations has been further pressured by the current global financial crisis.

At the same time the rhetoric of President George W. Bush has been replaced by a more reconciliatory message from his successor, calling for a process with the Islamic Republic of Iran that would “ not be advanced by threats” but rather “ instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect”22

Nonetheless many of the elements of the “Global War on Terror” that were so heavily criticised look set to remain. Unilateral military action in the defence of the interest of the United States a trend going back decades, a however it should be remembered that these actions have been typically been carried out when the United States has had the capacity to engage in such actions and believed it that the action had a good chance of success. As before, President Obama and his successors will continue to use all the methods at their disposal to advance the interests of the United States of America.

Bibliography

Kibbe, Jennifer D. : Covert Action and the Pentagon
Intelligence and National Security, Vol.22, No.1 Feb 2007 pp57-74

Lucas, Scott and Ryan, Maria : Against Everyone and No-one : the failure of the Unipolar in Iraq and Beyond

America and Iraq : Policy making, intervention and regional politics
Routledge 2008

The Boston Globe : What Bush hath wrought
Available:http:www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/01/what_bush_hath_wrought

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
http://web.archive.org/web/20010921052711/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Presidential Address to the Nation

http://web.archive.org/web/20011008222042/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.html

Guardian : Obama Administration says “Goodbye” to War on http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/obama-war-terror-overseas-contingency-operations

Leffler Melvyn : 9/11 and American foreign policy

Diplomatic History Vol 29, No.3 p395-413


The White House : A National Security Stratagey for a new Century 1998 http://www.fas.org/man/docs/nssr-98.pdf

BBC News – Obama offers Iran a New Beginning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7954211.stm

Washington Times : Obama Outlines withdrawl plan from Iraq
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/28/obama-outlines-withdrawal-from-iraq/

New York Daily Times : First strike: 17 dead as Obama aims missiles at Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Taliban enclaves
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/01/23/2009-01-

Budget of the United States Government 2009, Department of Defense
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

CBS News : Plans for Iraq Attack began on 9/11 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Nichlas Leman, The Next World Order

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/04/01/020401fa_FACT1?currentPage=2

Charles Krathammher : The Unipolar Movement,

Foreign Affairs 1991, 70, 1 p23-33

minidazzler

I support the men fighting it.

Hagar

minidazzler wrote: »

I support the men fighting it.

On both sides?

Manic Moran

A few thoughts of my own on the matter..........

They come with footnotes?

Regardless, it seems a fairly accurate assessment, but it does not seem in any way to address the poll the OP has posed.

NTM

Little Mickey

The "war on terror" is a war that can never come to an end IMO, after all precisely who can be defined as a terrorist or not a terrorist? Please explain that to the family of the Brazilian man who was shot dead in London the time of the bombs.
What is a "weapon mass destruction"? We need to define them before we search for them - i'm not sure if it is defined or am I incorrect?
It seems that its OK to have "weapons of mass destruction" if you're democratic and respected nation like the USA but not if you're a nation with terrorists - so again how do you define exactly a terrorist and weapons of mass destruction?
BTW, where are the "weapons of mass destruction" that were hiding in Iraq? An excuse to launch an illegal war, literally invading another country.
The "war on terror" can only be sustained IMO and used for domination and therefore revenue.

Hagar

More suited really to the Politics of War. Moved.

neilled

Manic Moran wrote: »

They come with footnotes?

Regardless, it seems a fairly accurate assessment, but it does not seem in any way to address the poll the OP has posed.

NTM

Yes, it was an essay I done for a course in college called "America in the 21st Century"! I just did a direct copy and past of my work from the word doc. I just thought it might be useful for people to think about the concept of the GWOT before voting in the poll.

DoireNod

For me, war should be avoided where possible and I think this 'War on Terror' was avoidable. Wasn't it a type of 'pre-emptive' war? Pre-emptive against what exactly?

Then you have these conspiracy theories that suggest that it is being waged with ulterior motives...

Manic Moran

Wasn't it a type of 'pre-emptive' war? Pre-emptive against what exactly?

I thought it was reactionary? It didn't kick off until after the odd terrorist attack.

WOT is just a catchy name for a policy, it's not really a war in the traditional sense of the word. That doesn't mean to say it can't still qualify under an extended definition, though.

NTM

DoireNod

Manic Moran wrote: »

I thought it was reactionary? It didn't kick off until after the odd terrorist attack.

WOT is just a catchy name for a policy, it's not really a war in the traditional sense of the word. That doesn't mean to say it can't still qualify under an extended definition, though.

NTM

Perhaps you're better informed than I am Manic Moran, but I was under the impression that this war was a pre-emptive one - an opinion which seems to be shared by a few social commentators, even Bush himself.

Who exactly was to blame for the 9/11 attack? The nation of Afghanistan? And why are Coalition forces in Iraq exactly? Was it to 'liberate' the oppressed Iraqi people? These are genuine questions.

I'm not exactly an expert on the matter and I don't claim to be, but when public opinion is largely against the waging of these wars and there are loads of public figures voicing concern that the wars are completely unnecessary and being waged for what could be seen as imperialist reasons, I am a bit wary.

Manic Moran

DoireNod wrote: »

Perhaps you're better informed than I am Manic Moran, but I was under the impression that this war was a pre-emptive one - an opinion which seems to be shared by a few social commentators, even Bush himself.

I don't think the war against terrorism would have started had terrorism not struck at the US. Individual campaigns may be pre-emptive, though, such as Iraq.

Who exactly was to blame for the 9/11 attack? The nation of Afghanistan?

With all the theories going around, it seems hard to be sure any more, but I'm going with the common convention of "Al Qaeda" which was operating openly within Afghanistan.

And why are Coalition forces in Iraq exactly? Was it to 'liberate' the oppressed Iraqi people?

I think more to get rid of Saddam. However, another fairly contentious question.

but when public opinion is largely against the waging of these wars

Unlike Iraq, the Afghanistan campaign has a fair bit of support.

NTM

Morlar

DoireNod wrote: »

Who exactly was to blame for the 9/11 attack? The nation of Afghanistan? And why are Coalition forces in Iraq exactly? Was it to 'liberate' the oppressed Iraqi people? These are genuine questions.

I think those are important and valid questions. The Bush pro-israel hawks who called for western (coalition) attacks on Iraq and who now call for the same against Iran have a lot to answer for in this regard. Manufactured evidence of WMD's left a bitter taste in the mouths of many people.

That aside Afghanistan was not about Saddam or WMD's. I think there are important distinctions between the Iraq and Afghanistan.

DoireNod wrote: »

I'm not exactly an expert on the matter and I don't claim to be, but when public opinion is largely against the waging of these wars and there are loads of public figures voicing concern that the wars are completely unnecessary and being waged for what could be seen as imperialist reasons, I am a bit wary.

I think there will always be 'social commentators' voicing their opposition to the war, that doesn't necessarily make them un-biased or even any more well informed than the general public.

Same with protestors. Some people on the left will protest at anything. The fact that these people will protest doesn't mean that there is anything particularly unique about Iraq or Afghanistan.

DoireNod

Manic Moran wrote: »

With all the theories going around, it seems hard to be sure any more, but I'm going with the common convention of "Al Qaeda" which was operating openly within Afghanistan.

That's my point. It's very hard to be sure. I understand that Al Qaeda have become the target for the devastating 9/11 attacks, but does that excuse the nature of the war waged in Afghanistan? Or is the heavy handed response from America a statement in itself?

I think more to get rid of Saddam. However, another fairly contentious question.

To get rid of Saddam for what? Was he a threat to the U.S.A.?

Unlike Iraq, the Afghanistan campaign has a fair bit of support.

Really? Among the public? Or among governments?

Morlar wrote: »

I think there will always be 'social commentators' voicing their opposition to the war, that doesn't necessarily make them un-biased or even any more well informed than the general public.

True, but in a lot of cases, these 'social commentators' provide an opinion that is widely held.

Same with protestors. Some people on the left will protest at anything. The fact that these people will protest doesn't mean that there is anything particularly unique about Iraq or Afghanistan.

People may protest at anything, but surely they have valid reasons to be protesting against wars being waged 'on their behalf' in the Middle-East? Surely these people aren't just exhibiting contrariness?

This may be OT, but Barry McGuire's song, 'Eve of Destruction', from the '60s holds true today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28

Manic Moran

but does that excuse the nature of the war waged in Afghanistan?

Out of interest, what do you think is the nature of the war being waged in Afghanistan? And how do you think it should be waged?

Or is the heavy handed response from America a statement in itself?

I have no doubt that the toppling of the Taliban government was a statement. It rather set the tone that the US was not mucking around.

To get rid of Saddam for what? Was he a threat to the U.S.A.?

He certainly seemed to hold a grudge for some reason, more so than most any other dictator in the world, possible exception of Muammar Ghadaffi (Who seems to have gotten over his grudge of late)

Really? Among the public? Or among governments?

Both. Even here on Boards, you will find a lot of poster expressing a distinction in their opinions between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Barry McGuire's song, 'Eve of Destruction', from the '60s holds true today

I'll tell you what doesn't hold true today. Those trousers. Thank Christ fashion has moved on.

NTM

neilled

Go back and read my original post and try and find some of the sources l've linked at the bottom. The likes of wolfowitz, krauthammer etc and other influential think tank members identified what they called "weapon states" as a threat to US interests in the region as far back as the 1990's.

These states they noted had a tendency to be rentier states ie most of their income came from foriegn rent aka sales of oil as opposed to general taxation. With such large incomes, large amounts of government funds could be spent on the coercive arms of the state and little heed paid to popular opinion, or key groups in society to be "bough off" when required and the fear was that they would acquire WMD's and use them against US interests or allies in the region or even against the USA itself.

To me Afghanistan = reaction against 9/11. The USA asked the Taliban govt to hand over OBL. Taliban said no, USA decided they'd go in and root out Al Qaeda themselves and if a government that was friendly or receptive to US interests happened to be installed..... what a wonderful cooincidence.

Iraq - Regime change in Iraq had been on the agenda with many influential think tanks aligned with the republican party. Remember, they saw what they thought was the oppertunity to capitalise on what seemed to be an emerging unipolar system in which the USA was the sole truely global power and wanted to capitalize on this development. Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan, however I feel it was a convenient way of marketing/packaging/selling the war to the public.

imported_guy

i dont support it in its current form

spec ops taking out priates, by all means do so

spec ops taking out commanders/leaders of alqaeda/taliban, go right ahead

but it just doesnt seem right to go into countries and make them follow a democracy, look at cuba, its been in a dictator ship for half a century and look at their education system/health care etc, look at venzuela one may argue that hugo chavez isnt a dictator, but i mean come on... and its one of the richest south american countries.

look at china.. probably the most powerful nation in the world right now, and they hosted the 08 olympics

neilled

By the way, the term is gone, - Overseas Contingency Operations is the new GWOT:D

DoireNod

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, what do you think is the nature of the war being waged in Afghanistan? And how do you think it should be waged?

Well, I'm not exactly sure how the war is being waged, but I'm aware that there was heavy aerial bombing and other such measures taken. Can you tell me how exactly it is being waged?

With regard to how I think it should be waged, I can't really say, as I don't think there should be a war.

I have no doubt that the toppling of the Taliban government was a statement. It rather set the tone that the US was not mucking around.

Certainly, I'd imagine that. Have they achieved their objectives yet though? Does it look likely in the near future?

He certainly seemed to hold a grudge for some reason, more so than most any other dictator in the world, possible exception of Muammar Ghadaffi (Who seems to have gotten over his grudge of late)

Holding a grudge!? I wonder why? In any case, what had he actually done to demonstrate this grudge?

I'll tell you what doesn't hold true today. Those trousers. Thank Christ fashion has moved on.

You are quite right! I like the song though!

I just want to make it clear that my questions are genuine, Manic Moran.

Originally Posted by neilled
By the way, the term is gone, - Overseas Contingency Operations is the new GWOT

Talk about trying to make it appear less aggressive! That's a change in language if I ever saw one!

It wasn't me!

DoireNod wrote: »

Talk about trying to make it appear less aggressive! That's a change in language if I ever saw one!

Was reading earlier about British operations in Kosovo in 1999, and the Albanian translations of the terms they were hearing. Rapid Reaction Unit was unfortunately translated with the meaning "Quickly-Interference Gang". Language is a funny beastie, particularly with military terms.

Manic Moran

DoireNod wrote: »

but I'm aware that there was heavy aerial bombing and other such measures taken. Can you tell me how exactly it is being waged?

Let me give you an example. We're the 'Battlespace owners' of Laghman province. It's between Kabul and the Pakistani border, so fairly important and not exactly the quiet, out of way NorthWest countryside that the Germans are mucking around in.

Twenty minutes ago, I watched two helicopters leave our base with a cargo of government officials and sling-loaded humanitarian aid. They're going up to one of the district centres, where our units have spent the last two days driving around from town-to-town advertising a 'shura', a sort of town-hall-meeting. We did exactly the same thing on the 10th, and the same thing on the 4th before that, in different parts of the province.

Also departing the base today where the Agricultural Development Team, consisting of a bunch of about 60 soldiers and experts from the Kanasas Army National Guard. They run an agricultural academy at the provincial capitol. Wheat production in the ares has increased 50% in the last two years, increasing local wealth and providing viable alternatives to opium or mercenary work.

The Provincial Reconstruction Team is another unit to have left the base today. This is a joint US Air Force/US Army 80=man organisation which tends to spend its time building roads, school, micro-hydro projects, and otherwise attempt to build the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan.

Lastly, we have our Military Police platoon going out and about. Their job is to train up the local police.

[Edit: Afghan police called. Said they found a roadside bomb, likely targeting the people coming back from the Shura. We've dispatched a patrol to take the bomb squad out]

The figures for Laghman province came across my desk earlier this week, for the period 01APR - 31JUL.

Number of verified insurgents killed 6.

Number of civilians killed by US forces 0.

Number of civilians murdered. 10

Number of civilians killed in motor vehicle accidents. 17

Number of sexual assaults reported 1. (Apparently described as the man promising to marry a woman before having sex, then reneging).

That's what our war is like. We're not afraid to accept battle, if the opposition gives us an excuse then we'll blow the crap out of them, and we'll use every weapon we have to do it. We had quite the fight one evening last month. That's why the lads advertising the Shura brought their artillery along with them: The insurgents around here don't like it when the government talk to the people. On occasion, there will be a pitched fight the likes of which you will see on the news. We will call in an airstrike or artillery or whatever, but they really are the exception more than the rule. Of course, "American army opens agricultural academy" isn't the sort of thing to make headline news on CNN, so nobody tends to know about it. Except for the Afghans. Too many people think we're just out here slinging high explosives around, using the following very discriminating method of identifying the enemy: We go up to someone, and ask "Are you a muslim?" If they say "Yes", we shoot them. In reality, we realise that the centre of gravity is not killing the insurgents, it's making them irrelevant by focusing on the populace.

With regard to how I think it should be waged, I can't really say, as I don't think there should be a war.

I think it's a little idealistic, but your opinion is valid. If somewhat overtaken by events.

Certainly, I'd imagine that. Have they achieved their objectives yet though?

I think as long as Bush was in charge, then 'yes.' There was much speculation over 'who he would hit next.'

Does it look likely in the near future?

Not sure. With Obama in charge the -perception- may be a shift in policy, but so far he hasn't acted in any way which would support a change.

Holding a grudge!? I wonder why? In any case, what had he actually done to demonstrate this grudge?

Odd assasination attempt, occasional pot shot at Coaliation aircraft... he didn't seem happy.

I just want to make it clear that my questions are genuine, Manic Moran.

Never thought otherwise.

NTM

philologos

I think it is necessary because of the situation we are in now to finish it out. I'm a pacifist, but I think the situation would be much much more violent and unstable were the US / UK / and other coalition troops to leave Afghanistan now.

McArmalite

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is necessary because of the situation we are in now to finish it out. I'm a pacifist, but I think the situation would be much much more violent and unstable were the US / UK / and other coalition troops to leave Afghanistan now.

" I'm a pacifist " :rolleyes: Pascifist - a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifist

philologos

McArmalite wrote: »

" I'm a pacifist " :rolleyes: Pascifist - a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifist

I personally was opposed to both invasions.

Applying a bit of utilitarianism to the situation suggests to me that leaving now would be chaos. We have a situation of less lives being lost versus a lot more lives being lost. I think I would take the former rather than the latter.

If pulling out of Afghanistan tomorrow meant that no more would die, I would support it. However, with reasonable thought one can rule out that this would be the case pretty quickly.