Posted By: geoff on Saturday, August 09, 2008
The rest of NATO might have been willing to more commitment if Bush had listened to advice not to invade Iraq. Otherwise... however much they sympathise with the people of Afghanistan, a lot of people see no reason to send their kids off to risk being killed in a war that is seen as supporting (by allowing the US to pull troops out of and generally stirring up the general level of animosity in the region) a war people are very much against.It's also only in the past year, I think, that the number of Canadian troops killed by the Taliban exceeded "friendly fire" casualties by our allies, the US. And when allied troops are killed, you tend not to make a lot of friends when Americans fight to close down any investigations or trials.
Posted By: Patriot Tom on Friday, August 15, 2008
Not being able to "win" with just the military has always been a fact in Afghanistan, and, sadly, it seems that just now people are starting to realize that. We needed massive humanitarian aid along with efforts to improve living standards as well as security, and we failed. I need to point out that Afghanistan has not been as war constantly since the Russians invaded; with the Taliban in power they saw peace. The world has a desperate shortage of medicinal opiates; we could help them to grow poppies as a legitimate crop (less money, but also much less violence). This, sadly, contradicts the Bush rigid doctrines, so is not allowed. Some common sense and pragmatism would go a long ways towards making things right in Afghanistan.
Posted By: Mihai (Romania) on Sunday, August 17, 2008
US Army enjoys a great military technological advantage for quite some time and that unfortunately affected its strategy and tactics. US military seems to think that anything can be solved with a big enough quantity of explosives. You go in fight with the best rifle, best airplane, best tank and you beat the hell out of your enemy. That works very well against regular armies as Sadam's, but is totally inadequate against guerillas. And that is because US usually makes another mistake: it doesn't try to understand its enemy, i.e. why they are fighting for. "Our enemies are bad, they hate us for our values and the only way is to defeat their combatant forces". I wonder how many US people pondered why there was a Vietcong in the South Vietnam but there was no anti-communist guerilla in the North Vietnam.
