# Morality of GWOT



## AdamZ42 (Aug 22, 2019)

Whats up guys and gals. 
This post is me searching for the opinions of those who have fought the GWOT on the morality of the GWOT. I come from a hippie background, my friends are peace loving deadheads. I believe our country is out to make the world a better place. I believe in the upholding human rights and the values of democracy. My friends and family constantly get in debates about the GWOT and the morality of wars we have been involved in over the last 20 years. They say that we come in with good intentions and end up oppressing the populations we seek to free. My uncles are ex-marines (one was wounded in Vietnam) and they are not happy with the way our country treats our warriors. They say we go overseas to fight wars that no one cares about or understands. The thought of that hurts. I have watched the Green Beret documentary "Why We Fight Now- The GWOT". I connect to their motivation for being in the fight. I want to believe that the end result the career I am training so hard for is to free the oppressed and not to line some politicians pocket. I understand that this is a job where freedom of thought is limited, and I am okay with that as long as the motives are just. What are your thoughts ?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 22, 2019)

I think it truly boils down to your own personal thoughts and reflections. I was very much a believer on my first deployment, not so much on my second.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 22, 2019)

AdamZ42 said:


> ...I want to believe that the end result the career I am training so hard for is to free the oppressed and not to line some politicians pocket. I understand that this is a job where freedom of thought is limited, and I am okay with that as long as the motives are just...



"Just motives" are subjective. What seems just to you might seem unjust to somebody else. Clausewitz said war is merely an extension of politics, and in most cases I think he's right. That means, as a warfighter, you are sent to do violence at the whim of politicians and civilian appointees. 

The GWOT started as revenge for 9/11 and morphed into a number of different objectives. What might begin as a just war to "free the oppressed" could turn into something very different as it evolves. Like your uncles, I fought in Vietnam and was wounded bad enough to get a ticket back to CONUS. I went to war believing very strongly that I was helping the people of South Vietnam resist communist aggression. But that simple-sounding "just" cause ended up being far more politically complicated.

The soldier obeys orders. He goes where he's told to go. If you think you're going to have a moral dilemma with the mission--like Bowe Bergdahl--then the military is probably not the place for you.


----------



## AdamZ42 (Aug 22, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> "Just motives" are subjective. What seems just to you might seem unjust to somebody else. Clausewitz said war is merely an extension of politics, and in most cases I think he's right. That means, as a warfighter, you are sent to do violence at the whim of politicians and civilian appointees.
> 
> The GWOT started as revenge for 9/11 and morphed into a number of different objectives. What might begin as a just war to "free the oppressed" could turn into something very different as it evolves. Like your uncles, I fought in Vietnam and was wounded bad enough to get a ticket back to CONUS. I went to war believing very strongly that I was helping the people of South Vietnam resist cBut that simple-sounding "just" cause ended up being far more politically complicated.
> 
> The soldier obeys orders. He goes where he's told to go. If you think you're going to have a moral dilemma with the mission--like Bowe Bergdahl--then the military is probably not the place for you.



I’m not a conscientious objector. I truly believe in our country. I understand that as a solider you are an extension of foreign policy and it’s not up to you to analyze the big picture. 
I’m not trying to debate the right or wrong of our foreign policy, I think we would all have similar views. I’m just curious as to how the majority of our warfighters perceive the results of their sacrifices.


----------



## Brill (Aug 22, 2019)

AdamZ42 said:


> They say we go overseas to fight wars that no one cares about or understands. The thought of that hurts.



It’s absolutely true. When we were at war, America was at the mall.  ISIS senior leadership were ALL graduates of the Bucca jihadist academy, which is where they got their street cred. 10th Group is fighting the “Taliban” (it’s actually the HiG) in the EXACT same places we cleared before...and the French before us.

My family was horrified at the helmet cam video I bought back and even though they saw my team on CNN, they thought it was isolated event because they had no idea we were fighting so much. We didn’t have worst of it like the guys in Wardak did. @Viper1 

I was 42 when I went. I don’t miss the fighting but I miss being surrounded by people who run into a wall of lead for a teammate.  We’re not being invaded by a hostile power so, for me personally, it’s not about baseball, hotdogs, and apple pie but rather the safety and survival of the team.

Not trying to be rude, but your friends and family do not understand what Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were like under totalitarian Islamic rule. Yes, there’s political corruption but nobody’s getting their heads chopped, crucified, or burned alive for listening to Nickleback over there.


----------



## AdamZ42 (Aug 22, 2019)

lindy said:


> I was 42 when I went. I don’t miss the fighting but I miss being surrounded by people who run into a wall of lead for a teammate.  We’re not being invaded by a hostile power so, for me personally, it’s not about baseball, hotdogs, and apple pie but rather the safety and survival of the team.
> 
> Not trying to be rude, but your friends and family do not understand what Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were like under totalitarian Islamic rule. Yes, there’s political corruption but nobody’s getting their heads chopped, crucified, or burned alive for listening to Nickleback over there.



I definitely agree. I am no expert on the subject and am just trying to learn. Thank you for your perspective!


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2019)

Morality is fungible, and is often shaped by outcomes.   Very few people would be expressing concerns about Viet Nam or the GWOT if we would have obtained a clear victory.  We firebombed THE SHIT out of Germany in WWII.  We nuked Japan.  Many people, particularly modern progressive academics, like to point out the perceived immorality of those actions.  But the bottom line is, we won.  Convincingly.  We have the photo ops to prove it.  We did not win in Korea, or Viet Nam, and we're not (IMO) winning in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Hence, people are a lot more concerned about the morality of those conflicts.

Also, when it comes to national security, there is a body of thought that nations have no business in the morality business. Machiavelli was a huge proponent. The international relations concept of "realism" relies heavily on the notion that nations, and hence leaders, have a responsibility to be "amoral" (as opposed to immoral) in matters of state security.

After 24 years in the Army and 7 tours downrange, my moral compass has a lot more play in it now than it did when I was younger.


----------



## Jaknight (Aug 22, 2019)

Why can’t we win the GWOT or why does it seem like that?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2019)

Well, some people will tell you it's hard to defeat a tactic (i.e. "terrorism").  But IMO, it's because we're not willing to do what it takes to win.


----------



## Jaknight (Aug 22, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, some people will tell you it's hard to defeat a tactic (i.e. "terrorism").  But IMO, it's because we're not willing to do what it takes to win.


  If you don't mind me asking what would we have to do to win?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2019)

See post #7.  Apply to modern times.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 22, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Why can’t we win the GWOT or why does it seem like that?


Because they are a bunch of pussies running this shit... We can fuck anyone we want to up... just let the beast go.


----------



## GOTWA (Aug 23, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> If you don't mind me asking what would we have to do to win?


Men don't fear swords. They fear monsters.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 23, 2019)

I don’t believe in anything. I’m just here for the violence.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 23, 2019)

amlove21 said:


> I don’t believe in anything. I’m just here for the violence.



Really? Because you are influencing kiddos and whatnot. 


If you were about the violence, you would have joined the Infantry...........


----------



## AWP (Aug 23, 2019)

lindy said:


> burned alive for listening to Nickleback over there.



But they should.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> If you were about the violence, you would have joined the Infantry...........



At least being a PJ he knows how to perform self-aid on burns.


----------



## AdamZ42 (Aug 23, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> See post #7.  Apply to modern times.


I believe we could definitely win with that approach. But for how long? Would carpet bombing the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan just fuel an extremist ideology? I think so. From my civilian perspective Islamic extremism creates a warrior that is not afraid to die. I think that to win we need to crush that soul by putting the fear of god into them. But how do we do that to a population that jumps at the chance to meet their god. Give them a reason to live ? Shit idk I’m just spitballing now.


----------



## Brill (Aug 23, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Why can’t we win the GWOT..?



The same reason some people hate the police, ICE, etc here.  The weapon of choice in AF is IED and the AK but here it’s Twitter.  Both places the belligerents are using asymmetric warfare.

The Islamic State is very different though because of the “Caliph’s” call for Muslims to make the Hijrah to the Levant.  The overwhelming number of foreigners who went believed they were following their religious obligation and didn’t want to fight but simply live in their own area according to Islam.  Fighting the kuffar would be required “according to God’s will.”


----------



## Brill (Aug 23, 2019)

AdamZ42 said:


> From my civilian perspective Islamic extremism creates a warrior that is not afraid to die. I think that to win we need to crush that soul by putting the fear of god into them.



You don’t understand the Islamic State. The devoted “love death more than you love life” and currently they believe the reason they are losing is because they’ve turned away from God.  They honestly believe they can defeat both the coalition AND the pro-Syrian regime forces (SY, RU, & IR) by becoming more religious and strictly following Islam as Muhammad did.

At least when they were in the Levant, we knew where they were.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 23, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Why can’t we win the GWOT or why does it seem like that?



Nobody's ever going to _win_ a Global War on Terror...if by _win_ you mean _victory_. It's whack a mole. You can contain it, quell it in some places and it'll just keep cropping up somewhere else. It's not something you can carpet bomb into extinction.

Just to contain it, you'd need a constant presence in all the places where it exists. We are essentially trying to do that with our SF/SOF in various hotspots around the globe. But terrorism is always going to be there. It's the poor man's atom bomb.

There's a saying about insurgencies and asymmetric warfare: all the enemy has to do to win is wait for you to leave. That was true in Vietnam. Our departure from OIF indirectly hastened the growth of the Islamic State. The Taliban are still active, still killing our soldiers after two decades. And they're waiting.

We'll be fighting terrorism in some form forever because of exponential population growth, especially in poor areas. Crowded slums are a breeding ground. If it's not radical jihadists, it'll be somebody else.


----------



## Box (Aug 23, 2019)

Morality and Warfare make such good bedfellows for a conversation topic - I like the reference to a "moral compass" as a launch point for my metaphoric rant.  

Everyone likes to think that "their" moral compass always points north.  Well - what "north" are you talking about??  There are different types of North and a compass points to magnetic north not 'true' north.  Different types of north just like their are different moral standards.   Obviously - since we are discussing "morality" we simply MUST be talking about "TRUE" north.
For this metaphor to make any fucking sense in the first place.  After all, Morality equals Truth - amiright?

HOT TIP - even a perfectly functioning compass doesn't point to 'TRUE" north if it hasn't been correctly adjusted - a person would be fucked if they strictly relied on their moral compass - even if their compass is reliable and PURE.  Especially if your compass is "PURE"
Failing to apply the proper declination to your compass will lead you to the wrong destination EVERY TIME no matter how high the quality of your compass.   In fact, if you are in Seattle or New York, your compass is going to be about 15 degrees out of tune with "TRUE" north the very first time you use it.  So far off track just because of where you were born.
...I'm not suggesting that those in Seattle or New York have an uncorrected moral code - its just a coincidence.

Consider a few map reading 'facts' as they relate (metaphorically) to morality...
Whenever someone is handed a map - they normally "assume" that the top of the map is north.  We assume the person handing us the map handed it to us in good faith because north is always the top of the page - well, sometimes it isn't.  Morality is funny that way - your friend might be looking at the map correctly with the best of intentions - but from your perspective, the map "looks" upside down.  More concerning is that sometimes the person handing you the map has nefarious intentions behind trying to mislead you to 'which way is North'
Friend or foe - no matter who hands you the map - you ALWAYS need to to orient the map to the terrain you are standing on to make sure that you AND the map are both in unison.  

The military complicates the Map-Morality-Metaphor even more because they throw in "grid" north.   The rank and file civilian already has problems figuring out which "moral-north" to follow if they haven't had time to declinate their compass;  now the military comes along with a grid system that adds 'grid' north to your dilemma. 
Oh geez-o-whiz which which moral-north is the most important?

Stick with me - I think I have a point to make...................

Maps need to be updated every so often - roads change, areas become built up, even entire hill tops are leveled to make room for new construction.  Maybe the landscape is the same but the declination has changed (declination changes over time).  That's right - you heard me - the difference between TRUE north and the moral-magnetic-north on your compass changes based on where you are as well as WHEN you are.   Just like our own personal moral views evolve over time - a compass needle constantly searches for an ever changing destination.
If you adjusted your moral compass to point to true north while you were in New York and then YEARS later you move to New Orleans - your compass is going to seem all fucked up again. 
...again, I'm not suggesting there is a moral irregularity with New Yorkers - its just a metaphor !!!

You have to have a current map for the terrain you are on - you have to make sure you orient the map - you have to working compass - then of course, you have to make sure the declination on your compass matches your map. 
-You dont always NEED a compass if you are really good at reading a map but even the best maps have errors and landscape changes, so be careful
-You dont always NEED a map if you are really good at using your compass but even a cellphone could depolarize the needle and make it point south
-Events throughout your life might change YOUR needle and cause a conflict between your compass and TRUE north

Now - since the original question was ALSO in the context of the GWOT and the wars we have been involved in over the last 20 years you have to add yet ANOTHER variable into this entire "Moral Compass Metaphor"
...only Western Civilization considers "North" as the basic direction from which all others are measured.
Islam uses a different compass to guide their path - their moral compass points to the qibla - which by the way is NOT north.  You might not want to use a qibla compass with an American map if you don't understand how to integrate opposing cultures while
Which method is correct?

To address a few other comments from the original poster - freedom of thought is NEVER limited in this profession - it is cultivated and praised. Freedom of action and freedom of speech may be limited but freedom of thought is not (at least not yet - the democrats still haven't overthrown the American people).  

That documentary, "Why We Fight Now- The GWOT" only reflects the view point of the folks that produced it.  Some may feel the same - some may not - some may be right smack in the middle.  There are probably a lot of folks that were interviewed that got NO screen time because their comments didn't "fit the narrative" that the documentarian was trying to push.  What is important to the documentarian is that YOU connected with their message.

It all boils down to "navigation" you cant define morality - you have to navigate morality.
You cant just blindly follow a compass or you'll walk off a cliff.  Morality in warfare is something that MUST be navigated unless you want to end up in the nut house. 
You MUST acknowledge that times and attitudes change and in order to navigate the modern world, you have to periodically update your map and do maintenance on your moral-compass.
If you're worried about getting "lost" or you are just plain uncomfortable being alone and unafraid with nothing more than your map and moral comapss then you should try and stay out of the woods.


----------



## Kaldak (Aug 23, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> After 24 years in the Army and 7 tours downrange, my moral compass has a lot more play in it now than it did when I was younger.



Is that for the better or worse?


----------



## Daemon40 (Aug 23, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> We'll be fighting terrorism in some form forever because of exponential population growth, especially in poor areas. Crowded slums are a breeding ground. If it's not radical jihadists, it'll be somebody else.



Forever? Rome believed it could do the same forever as well, and it ended up draining it and being one of the reasons for its collapse. Theres a reason why Afghanistan and by extension the Middle East are known as the "Graveyard of Empires". Perhaps we are different, but that's what every empire likely thought of itself.


----------



## GOTWA (Aug 23, 2019)

Box said:


> If you're worried about getting "lost" or you are just plain uncomfortable being alone and unafraid with nothing more than your map and moral comapss then you should try and stay out of the woods.



I'll never forget what @lindy said and it means something for me as well; there will come a point in time when decisions need to be made and actions need to be taken, and sometimes, those decisions and actions are for keeps.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kaldak said:


> Is that for the better or worse?



Neither.  It's just a lot less rigid, and a lot more realistic.  And a lot more tolerant of the moral failings of others.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2019)

I didn't write this, it popped up in my FB feed today.  I think this sums it up nicely:


----------



## Brill (Aug 24, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I didn't write this, it popped up in my FB feed today.  I think this sums it up nicely:
> 
> View attachment 29112



May God bless GEN Mattis.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 24, 2019)

Daemon40 said:


> Forever? Rome believed it could do the same forever as well, and it ended up draining it and being one of the reasons for its collapse. Theres a reason why Afghanistan and by extension the Middle East are known as the "Graveyard of Empires". Perhaps we are different, but that's what every empire likely thought of itself.



Yeah. Forever. If not us, somebody else. As long as there are malcontented zealot fuckwads with a grudge there will be terrorism.

Why not? It's easy, cheap and gets the point across.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 24, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I didn't write this, it popped up in my FB feed today.  I think this sums it up nicely:
> 
> View attachment 29112




In other words, get down on their level of ruthlessness. After a while exposure to and contact with the enemy builds up a desensitizing callousness.  I saw it with my fellow Marines, experienced it myself and with our counterparts--a number of whom had been fighting for years.

The moral compass, as Box says, is open to interpretation and improvisation. You want to kill the fucks and make them fear you by whatever means. Fair play has no place on the battlefield.


----------



## Jaknight (Aug 24, 2019)

Didn’t The Emperor of Japan who they worshipped like a god tell them not to fight no more?  Wouldn’t they need for Allah to tell them to stop fighting?


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 24, 2019)

Jaknight said:


> Didn’t The Emperor of Japan who they worshipped like a god tell them not to fight no more?  Wouldn’t they need for Allah to tell them to stop fighting?



It's not Allah telling them to fight, it's the Mullah's and warlords.  

Something that has been said already but not gone into great detail is culture.  Perhaps for those that don't have the experience or understanding of the enemy's we've fought for the past few decades; you need research their cultures.  For the most part, the rest of the world still follows the basic "laws" of humanity.
At the same time they both fear and respect the man with the "bigger stick", typically an elder.  If you reach an old age in a society ruled by violence, you need to be violent.

Our enemies know that Western society has become soft and will always use that against us.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 24, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> It's not Allah telling them to fight, it's the Mullah's and warlords.
> 
> Something that has been said already but not gone into great detail is culture.  Perhaps for those that don't have the experience or understanding of the enemy's we've fought for the past few decades; you need research their cultures.  For the most part, the rest of the world still follows the basic "laws" of humanity.
> At the same time they both fear and respect the man with the "bigger stick", typically an elder.  If you reach an old age in a society ruled by violence, you need to be violent.
> ...




Allah can...go to Allah.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 24, 2019)

The general public would be astonished at how inbred and ignorant the middle East is... no bullshit....


----------



## Daemon40 (Aug 26, 2019)

RackMaster said:


> Our enemies know that Western society has become soft and will always use that against us.


There is also the resentment of many young men today, the Air Force is right to be concerned over their potential radicalization.

I have a strong distaste for modern dating culture, and refuse to engage in it, but at the end of the day there will always be hoops to jump in whatever age you are born in. The ancient past had harsh, direct, survival tests of ones fitness, nowadays one is expected to maintain the same fitness despite not having a direct immediate survival need for it. We now interact with several hundred people per day, despite only being evolved to socialize in smaller groups, the bigger the groups get, the more isolated some become from the sensory and social overload.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 26, 2019)




----------



## Gunz (Aug 27, 2019)

What is that, the incel anthem?


----------



## 11Bull (Aug 29, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> The general public would be astonished at how inbred and ignorant the middle East is... no bullshit....


Sounds like North Carolina.


----------



## Hunter4461 (Sep 2, 2019)

There does seem to be a way in which we fight wars that has become a major problem going as far back as Korea. We go into places with all the right reasons but non-the-less get kicked back out or create a bigger mess. We can look at ISIS and say we did that though it wasn't the troops it was the people in Washington which we don't need to get into. Either way, we fight to protect and get people under a better way of life. Clearly we are the most prosperous nation on earth so people who don't even have running water not wanting us blows my mind. I guess thats the way of the world and the part that religion even plays in some nations.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 9, 2019)

AdamZ42 said:


> I believe we could definitely win with that approach. But for how long? Would carpet bombing the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan just fuel an extremist ideology? I think so. From my civilian perspective Islamic extremism creates a warrior that is not afraid to die. I think that to win we need to crush that soul by putting the fear of god into them. But how do we do that to a population that jumps at the chance to meet their god. Give them a reason to live ? Shit idk I’m just spitballing now.



The myth of the suicidal jihadist is greatly overblown. While some of the rank and file are willing to strap on a vest or something equally suicidal, most are not. Their senior leadership definitely isn't. We can knock down the footsoldiers all day long, but as long as the enemy retains the ability generate, train, equip, and provide sanctuary for them ad infinitum, the war is never going to end. Well, it won't end with anything that looks like a victory for us, at least.

Carpet bombing Afghanistan a la WWII isn't going to work as a tactic, but the underlying strategy is sound. The reason strategic bombing was useful against Germany and Japan was because it undermined the credibility of the ruling elite and diminished their country's strategic capacity. It attacked the enemy where they lived, where they worked, and where they generated the capability and intent to cause us harm.

That's what it's going to take in order to "win" in Afghanistan: getting after the strategic capabilities of our enemies (which isn't, by the way, just the Taliban) where they live. And that's not in Afghanistan, it's Pakistan. 

The other thing to remember is that long-range attacks weren't successful on their own. I imagine if we would have had nukes early in the war, and maintained the will to use them, we could have nuked both Germany and Japan out of the war quickly. But we don't do that anymore. Plus, we're trying to prop up the governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, so nuking the crap out of people is a non-starter both tactically and strategically. Even if we were to institute some kind of large-scale bombing campaign, the moral opprobrium would probably be strategically counterproductive.

So, we need a modern solution to old-school strategic bombing. But what does that mean, and how do we do it? We can do drone strikes, SOF direct action, and strategic targeting all day long. But until and unless we get after their training sites, their leadership, their financing, and their state-level support, it will all be for naught. Our enemies have been at this game a lot longer than we have, and unlike us, they're committed to winning.

One last thought before this gets TL;DR: the war in Afghanistan is financed, equipped, trained, and directed through Pakistan. The Taliban's most effective arm, the Haqqani Network, is controlled by Pakistan's intelligence service. If we want to do something meaningful in Afghanistan, we have to do something meaningful about Pakistan.

I don't know what that looks like, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make those kinds of decisions.

#It'sComplicated


----------



## Brill (Sep 9, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> So, we need a modern solution to old-school strategic bombing. But what does that mean, and how do we do it?



CYBER!!!!!!


----------



## Brill (Sep 9, 2019)

@Marauder06, would you not agree that GWOT is way more than Afghanistan? We’re in Levant, Africa, and Pacific rim FID’ing the shit out of host nation forces.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 9, 2019)

lindy said:


> @Marauder06, would you not agree that GWOT is way more than Afghanistan? We’re in Levant, Africa, and Pacific rim FID’ing the shit out of host nation forces.



Yes, of course. That's why it's the GWOT not the AWOT ;)


----------



## Scarecrow (Sep 9, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> The myth of the suicidal jihadist is greatly overblown. While some of the rank and file are willing to strap on a vest or something equally suicidal, most are not. Their senior leadership definitely isn't. We can knock down the footsoldiers all day long, but as long as the enemy retains the ability generate, train, equip, and provide sanctuary for them ad infinitum, the war is never going to end. Well, it won't end with anything that looks like a victory for us, at least.
> 
> Carpet bombing Afghanistan a la WWII isn't going to work as a tactic, but the underlying strategy is sound. The reason strategic bombing was useful against Germany and Japan was because it undermined the credibility of the ruling elite and diminished their country's strategic capacity. It attacked the enemy where they lived, where they worked, and where they generated the capability and intent to cause us harm.
> 
> ...


Assuming it didn’t go nuclear, how do you see a war playing out with Pakistan? Would it be similar to the 2003 Iraq invasion and the government and military collapsing in the first month or two, or is Pakistan be considered a near-peer enemy and the casualties be something we haven’t seen since the Korean War?


----------



## Jaknight (Sep 9, 2019)

Scarecrow said:


> Assuming it didn’t go nuclear, how do you see a war playing out with Pakistan? Would it be similar to the 2003 Iraq invasion and the government and military collapsing in the first month or two, or is Pakistan be considered a near-peer enemy and the casualties be something we haven’t seen since the Korean War?


 Sorry not sure if it’s accurate but Doesn’t Pakistan keep it’s nukes in Vans or something like that? Wouldn’t they just give their Terrorists a nuke to cause havoc?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 10, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> The myth of the suicidal jihadist is greatly overblown. While some of the rank and file are willing to strap on a vest or something equally suicidal, most are not. Their senior leadership definitely isn't. We can knock down the footsoldiers all day long, but as long as the enemy retains the ability generate, train, equip, and provide sanctuary for them ad infinitum, the war is never going to end. Well, it won't end with anything that looks like a victory for us, at least.
> 
> Carpet bombing Afghanistan a la WWII isn't going to work as a tactic, but the underlying strategy is sound. The reason strategic bombing was useful against Germany and Japan was because it undermined the credibility of the ruling elite and diminished their country's strategic capacity. It attacked the enemy where they lived, where they worked, and where they generated the capability and intent to cause us harm.
> 
> ...



Just my personal opinion, its gonna take education and exposure to the world to change the generations to come. Killing off the leadership is great, but from my perspective it hasn't worked. The biggest issue I saw in Iraq was the people we rolled up and didn't kill, had really no idea why they were doing what they were doing. Many of them couldn't read or write, and were blindly following their clerics. We would get stories of how we had special air conditioners under our uniforms so that we can fight during the day, to we were all on drugs to make us better fighters, etc. 

The ignorance of the people is pretty astonishing. 

I think you we would need to kill off a lot of people, and do an extensive education program with the young to ever defeat the "ideology" and that's not gonna happen.


----------



## GOTWA (Sep 10, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> Your post.



I know it's often said that it's difficult to fight an ideology and I partly agree with that.  You can't necessarily treat this war like a WW2 and bomb our problems away, but the mindset to do so must exist.  A very simplistic idea requiring a complex approach, take away what it means to be a martyr.


----------



## Box (Sep 10, 2019)

If the ROE says you cannot proselytize - how can you ever expect to reset the local ideology?

The US has not been committed to "winning" an armed conflict since the mushroom cloud from Fat-Man dissipated.   
Morality?

Which defining parameters of morality are we using for this discussion?


----------



## Brill (Sep 10, 2019)

I’m confident that some will view this comment as veiled white supremacy so anyone that does isn’t reading but rather incorrectly drawing a nonexistent conclusion.

Are there parallels to our involvement in Afghanistan and counter insurgency in Rhodesia? (I’m not talking about minority rule.)

After Mugabe’s death, I started reading about the history of Zimbabwe. Initially, it seems the insurgents (ZAPU & ZANU) were supported by Marxists regimes like Soviets, Chinese, and North Korean who provided arms and training at camps in neighboring countries. Rhodesian government forces, made up of BOTH colonialists and locals fought against numerical superior insurgents but held them off for...years...by winning on the battlefield (e.g. killing more insurgents than government forces killed). It seems that when government forces executed strikes on insurgent camps deep in Zambia and Mozambique, the UN cried foul and international political pressure increased for self determination.  “Elections” were held in 1980 and Zimbabwe started its path towards destruction.

I submit that Russia, Iran, and Pakistan are doing the same in AF as the commies did in Rhodesia. The Taliban are able to convince and coerce the local population to support but, like Rhodesians, some Afghans do not want Taliban rule but cannot exist without external support too.

Ultimately, the local population was immune to human suffering and death in the 70s so by the 80s, an entire generation was not equipped with the moral values of their elders.  Killing in the region exploded.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Sep 14, 2019)

^Pretty good analogy, and it goes without saying that Rhodesia was doing better overall back then that it is now or will be anytime soon. Though they had a racist government in place in am African country, the economy and standard of living dived after they became Zimbabwe.


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2019)

BlackSmokeRisinG said:


> Though they had a racist government in place in am African country, the economy and standard of living dived after they became Zimbabwe.



I’m not yet up to speed on their government policies but I’m certain they weren’t separate like South Africa.  I think minority rule was a hold over from colonial British rule but the Marxist intervention definitely pushed the idea that Mugabe was fighting for indigenous rule.

In AF, seems that the internal struggle is over West vs Pakistan, which if funded by the West.

http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Journal of the University of Zimbabwe/vol3n1/juz003001005.pdf


----------

