I agree, but that's not what his post was discussing, it was wars won. Most of the wars we've fought did not need to happen, but a war fought for ****ty reasons, but won, is still a war won.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it
- Thread starter CAJUNLAWYER
- Start date
I agree, but that's not what his post was discussing, it was wars won. Most of the wars we've fought did not need to happen, but a war fought for ****ty reasons, but won, is still a war won.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Historical parallels are over-used, and often misinterpreted.
South Vietnam fell to an invading army, which we could have stopped militarily if the political will had been there and the American people had actually supported that; neither was the case. The ARVN, at least in significant parts, fought until the end, if finally ineffectively. But they held for almost two years without US ground troops, giving Nixon and Kissinger their “decent interval” before it was over.
Afghanistan, despite many Afghans joining our efforts, just fell apart. “Nuking Hanoi” was never an option; there was no Hanoi. Most of the Afghan security forces, which outnumbered the Taliban 6 to 1 or so in nominal strength and were much better equipped, seem to have made deals of surrender or just gone home. There was no Battle of Kabul.
So all the tough talk is cheap, but also detached from practical reality. The deal with the Taliban about the evacuation seems to have largely held, to the displeasure of the Islamist Jihadis, as the bombing shows. Anyone who thinks some kind of heroic fighting withdrawal would have been preferable should study the history of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842.
South Vietnam fell to an invading army, which we could have stopped militarily if the political will had been there and the American people had actually supported that; neither was the case. The ARVN, at least in significant parts, fought until the end, if finally ineffectively. But they held for almost two years without US ground troops, giving Nixon and Kissinger their “decent interval” before it was over.
Afghanistan, despite many Afghans joining our efforts, just fell apart. “Nuking Hanoi” was never an option; there was no Hanoi. Most of the Afghan security forces, which outnumbered the Taliban 6 to 1 or so in nominal strength and were much better equipped, seem to have made deals of surrender or just gone home. There was no Battle of Kabul.
So all the tough talk is cheap, but also detached from practical reality. The deal with the Taliban about the evacuation seems to have largely held, to the displeasure of the Islamist Jihadis, as the bombing shows. Anyone who thinks some kind of heroic fighting withdrawal would have been preferable should study the history of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842.
Attachments
Jon651
Member
There is no pretty way to lose a war. I have yet to hear anyone put forth a convincing argument that what we are seeing today in Afghanistan would not have happened at any other time or under any other leadership. It is much more difficult to take the first step than it is to make the second guess.
Socrates believed that when people had knowledge, they would behave according to that knowledge. Poor, deluded philosopher.
"Socrates states, “to know the good is to do the good” and he links knowledge with virtue to show that people cannot perform in a wrong way knowing that it is wrong, but (according to Socrates) “they … do [(I mean) they perform] thinking that they [their actions] are good in some way.”
"Socrates states, “to know the good is to do the good” and he links knowledge with virtue to show that people cannot perform in a wrong way knowing that it is wrong, but (according to Socrates) “they … do [(I mean) they perform] thinking that they [their actions] are good in some way.”
Last edited:
ggibson511960
Member
We had 2,500 or so military controlling communications and air assets. Those 2,500 and the Afghan National Army commandos held status quo for 18 months without a single U.S. casualty. On June 16 the Commandos found themselves surrounded in the hotly contested village of Dawlat. With no warning we ceased close air support and let them be overrun. 22 commandos were summarily executed, including their leader Sohrab Azimi, celebrated fighting leader and son of an Afghan army general. Word spread quickly that the U.S. had abandoned it overwhelming air power leverage and would not support Afghanistan any longer. The army threw down their weapons or fled the country and the rest is unfolding, horrific history. We didn't learn anything from the Russians fighting the Mujahedeen. An air force can't hold ground, but it can have its way with savages without an air force.
Oh ok, so we're not talking about bombing into the stone age, but close air support? Were we not doing exactly that, much to the chagrin of locals often caught up in it, for the entire rest of the war? Why didn't that get us the win?
Our politicians have not even tried to win a war in the last 75 years. They treat our military like the world police being sent in to stop a family disturbance - you can never win like that.
Ogandydancer
Member
Those who fail to learn from history are forced to repeat it
And this is what makes me so ticked off about people removing and trying to remove or historical statues and flush them all down the proverbial drain and trying to get schools to stop teaching certain parts of American history.
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
Sitting here, biting my tongue, trying to control my fingers on a keyboard. Nothing I can enter would be enlightening so I will enter no more, other than to say that we are experiencing some very sad days.
Old Arkansawyer
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- 4,750
Wars, are fought because of Greed, Religion, and Territory(that my be
greed also). And to my understanding that is the way it has been throughout recorded history. The U.S., and other countries are good at
painting flowery pictures but when the propaganda is torn away and look
at the root causes, well read the first line.
To quote from Edwin Starr, War is a heart breaker, only friend is the
undertaker.
greed also). And to my understanding that is the way it has been throughout recorded history. The U.S., and other countries are good at
painting flowery pictures but when the propaganda is torn away and look
at the root causes, well read the first line.
To quote from Edwin Starr, War is a heart breaker, only friend is the
undertaker.
twodog max
Member
As a casual student and reader of military histories the bungling of leaders throughout history is timeless. The numbers of humans killed by stupidity, greed, prejudice and arrogance is boundless.
Think of all the money. They did. It went to aircraft manufactures, munitions plants, vehicle manufactures, suppliers of boots, armor, helmets, etc etc etc. Private security firms and their management. 2 trillion bucks worth of stuff minus what we handed over in cash to the Afghans. 2 trillion in $100 bills would weight about 45 million pounds and fill about 10,000 semi trailers.
That is what they learned from Vietnam
That is what they learned from Vietnam
Last edited:
^^^^^ This. I got recruited out of my college job to train AF MOI police in 2011 for $154,000 annually plus transpro, room, board, equipment, and two R&Rs. I wasn't even close to the higher paid police guy, and there were hundreds, if not a couple of thousand. The company was making 45% over my/their salaries for each one and reimbursed for all my/their expenses at cost plus 15%.
My horse-posterior guess is that maybe 25-30% of that $2.2 trillion was turned into profit for Beltway Bandits.
My horse-posterior guess is that maybe 25-30% of that $2.2 trillion was turned into profit for Beltway Bandits.
Last edited:
ggibson511960
Member
Interesting bit of historical narrative in today's WSJ. Peggy Noonan, always adept at seeing the kinder gentler side of issues, reveals how we could have wrapped up our travails in Afghanistan if we had gotten Bin Laden in December 2001 when we had him surrounded and bombed silly in Tora Bora. We were afraid of offending the Pakistanis whose intelligence service had backed the Taliban for years, and also loathe to offend the nascent Afghan government in Kabul with a big ground campaign on their "sovereign" soil. Both of these reasons are plausible and consistent with current foreign policy appeasement posture. Theorizing misguided civilian controls of the military is conjecture, but history will eventually disgorge its secrets to historians. It would not appear that history will be kind to the current civilian-military group of managers, whatever the secret motives. There is also an essay by Paul Wolfowitz that quotes Winston Churchill's quip to Neville Chamberlain over his accommodation of Hitler, "If you chose dishonor over war, you will get war anyway."
vonn
US Veteran
The whole problem is politicians both civilian and military. Rules of engagement are beyond stupid.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
My honest response would have me banned (Again). It is clear to me that the Hanoi government was and is far less of a threat to the United States and the West, than what we are now allowing to fester in Afghanistan - to mention nothing of the sacrifices made by so many to secure us from that quarter. May our dead rest in peace, and may we be ready to act appropriately and decisively for what comes next.
Similar threads
