BF2S Forums 10 years in Afghanistan

I thought that once you reach the top of the hierarchical ladder you could, or rather, you should if the order is not defined. In the best interest of the million+ soldiers serving under you.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-09-20 13:29:56)

That's depressing.

At least over here refusing a ridiculous order is positively received (see mike jackson's run-in with Wesley Clarke). The even more ridiculous part about this is that some other asshole general called Jackson's refusal to attack the ruskis as "troubling behaviour".

Shocking wrote:

That's depressing.

At least over here refusing a ridiculous order is positively received (see mike jackson's run-in with Wesley Clarke). The even more ridiculous part about this is that some other asshole general called Jackson's refusal to attack the ruskis as "troubling behaviour".

In military planning, one takes the assumptions given from the levels above as facts and proceeds as if they were so. Once the questions have been asked and the answers given--even if they make no sense--you plan as best you can. I would argue that the military aspects have done fine...it's the other aspects of the "whole of government" approach (to include multinational) that haven't worked too well.

rdx-fx wrote:

Also, it'd be unsportsmanlike to break up a 4,000 year old grudge match, just when it's getting interesting.

Its not a 4,000 year old grudge match, bearing in mind it was the Romans who the Jews couldn't get on with.

Its a 60 year old grudge match, where the US has been backing one side to the detriment of the Palestinians and the whole of the rest of the Middle East.

Now, ten years on, we're still in Afghanistan for reasons which make no sense to anyone - including the Afghans.
And its still going badly and backwards.

You go out there and explain the fine differences.

Common sense goals;

• Kill or capture Osama bin Laden (Would've happened in 2003, if not for DC interference)
• Depose Saddam Hussein in 1991, for WMD (nerve agent) genocide against the Kurds.
• If the Taliban government of Afghanistan wants to protect OBL, take them out of power too (half-assed done)
• Go after the Saudi financial sponsors of Al Quaeda (Lloyd's of London apparently has more balls than the White House there)

Out of that list, the first three of them the military handed up on a silver platter, only to have DC shitcan the efforts. Then to have the military do it all over again, years later.

Osama bin Laden?
In 1993 - The first time Al Quaeda tried to take down the WTC? no, Billy goat Clinton was too busy getting blown by his intern(s).
In 2001 or 2003 - No.  We have to .. um... let the native personnel "capture" him.  Nevermind, we're going after him for 9/11, nevermind having him surrounded and crying about losing, and have a whole damn pile of SF ODs surrounding the area.
In 2011 - oh, fine.. fine.. if you're so insistent... (Note - this was apparently near-insubordination by the SOCOM command to actually do this, White House didn't want to do it)

Saddam in 1990?
Nah, give up when he's (quite literally) in your sights.  Do the whole invasion all over again in 2003, for reasons that were perfectly valid in 1990

Afghanistan and the Taliban in the 1980's?
Nah - Soviets left. 
'We'll just leave our allies behind and forget about them.
Pakistani ISI will take care of everything for us.  They did such a good job telling us which Northern Alliance commanders to kill or support. 
That Osama bin Laden guy - real superstar, there; expect great things from him in the future...'

Dilbert_x wrote:

You go out there and explain the fine differences.

But, my dear Dilbert, that's exactly what we spend all that money on the Israelis for;
So they can explain the fine differences, in the only terms their neighbors seem to understand.
But that thread is over HERE

Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-09-21 08:42:51)

Shocking wrote:

I understand this, but the joint chiefs have responsibility in the matter as well - that's all I'm saying really.

Military handed all the obvious goals to the politicians.
Politicians threw them away, only to have the military redo the whole effort again years later.

Joint Chiefs did their job.  Many times over.

DC threw the results away. 

See my above post.
Now with 1000% more shiny orange source links!

Shocking wrote:

Except for one thing: what to do with Afghanistan as a country after removing the Taliban from the government, which was done shortly after the invasion. Long term planning for Afgh was missing. Other than that there's little the military did wrong. They deposed and dismantled the existing regimes and their armed forces, after about a year all that was left in both countries were insurgencies. That's the moment when it all went wrong.

The error was in sticking around after we accomplished the military objective.

The error was in thinking that Western minds in DC could wrap their minds around what Islamic nations needed for nation building.

The Western troops, in many areas, have taken great efforts to understand the native culture. 
Ask any of the linguists, or careerists with 10 tours in the sandbox, or anyone who has 'bought in' on the whole COIN concept.

Where it all falls apart, again, is passing that understanding back up to the decision makers in DC.


DC policy makers can't be bothered to do their job in formulating a coherent international policy. 
Much less giving complete strategic & political orders to their military commanders.
Much less bothering to wrap their heads around the culture and mindset of middle easterners on the other side of the planet.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-09-21 09:25:45)

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Except for one thing: what to do with Afghanistan as a country after removing the Taliban from the government, which was done shortly after the invasion. Long term planning for Afgh was missing. Other than that there's little the military did wrong. They deposed and dismantled the existing regimes and their armed forces, after about a year all that was left in both countries were insurgencies. That's the moment when it all went wrong.

The error was in sticking around after we accomplished the military objective.

The error was in thinking that Western minds in DC could wrap their minds around what Islamic nations needed for nation building.

The Western troops, in many areas, have taken great efforts to understand the native culture. 
Ask any of the linguists, or careerists with 10 tours in the sandbox, or anyone who has 'bought in' on the whole COIN concept.

Where it all falls apart, again, is passing that understanding back up to the decision makers in DC.


DC policy makers can't be bothered to do their job in formulating a coherent international policy. 
Much less giving complete strategic & political orders to their military commanders.
Much less bothering to wrap their heads around the culture and mindset of middle easterners on the other side of the planet.

I think our misunderstanding here is me thinking the joint chiefs are part of the political body in DC. My assumption was that they take part in the discussions there and help in the decision making that gets done in regards to Afgh or Iraq. Hence I felt they were as accountable for the mistakes as the actual politicians in DC. If however the situation there was as bad as you describe it, being that their calls fell on deaf ears and the communication was mostly one way from DC -> joint chiefs, that's pretty dire.

Still I have a hard time believing that they (the joint chiefs) would say "oh fuck it", pressed the "war" button and just waddled around in circles for ~5 years. I was under the impression that the people in those positions didn't just go "yes, sir" every time an order would be passed down. If they did though, that, in my view, still makes them accountable. Tells me they put the safety of their careers before everything else, which is pretty serious considering the consequences of that behaviour.

Not to say that I don't dislike Cheney / Rumsfeld more, but it's wrong to let those in the most powerful positions within the military off because they were 'simply following orders'. You'd expect that of all people the joint chiefs would show more integrity than that.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-09-21 09:59:04)

Shocking wrote:

Except for one thing: what to do with Afghanistan as a country after removing the Taliban from the government, which was done shortly after the invasion. Long term planning for Afgh was missing. Other than that there's little the military did wrong. They deposed and dismantled the existing regimes and their armed forces, after about a year all that was left in both countries were insurgencies. That's the moment when it all went wrong.

That long term planning for the government of Afghanistan is not the purview of the military. See my previous comment regarding the whole of government effort.

Shocking wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Except for one thing: what to do with Afghanistan as a country after removing the Taliban from the government, which was done shortly after the invasion. Long term planning for Afgh was missing. Other than that there's little the military did wrong. They deposed and dismantled the existing regimes and their armed forces, after about a year all that was left in both countries were insurgencies. That's the moment when it all went wrong.

The error was in sticking around after we accomplished the military objective.

The error was in thinking that Western minds in DC could wrap their minds around what Islamic nations needed for nation building.

The Western troops, in many areas, have taken great efforts to understand the native culture. 
Ask any of the linguists, or careerists with 10 tours in the sandbox, or anyone who has 'bought in' on the whole COIN concept.

Where it all falls apart, again, is passing that understanding back up to the decision makers in DC.


DC policy makers can't be bothered to do their job in formulating a coherent international policy. 
Much less giving complete strategic & political orders to their military commanders.
Much less bothering to wrap their heads around the culture and mindset of middle easterners on the other side of the planet.

I think our misunderstanding here is me thinking the joint chiefs are part of the political body in DC. My assumption was that they take part in the discussions there and help in the decision making that gets done in regards to Afgh or Iraq. Hence I felt they were as accountable for the mistakes as the actual politicians in DC. If however the situation there was as bad as you describe it, being that their calls fell on deaf ears and the communication was mostly one way from DC -> joint chiefs, that's pretty dire.

Still I have a hard time believing that they (the joint chiefs) would say "oh fuck it", pressed the "war" button and just waddled around in circles for ~5 years. I was under the impression that the people in those positions didn't just go "yes, sir" every time an order would be passed down. If they did though, that, in my view, still makes them accountable. Tells me they put the safety of their careers before everything else, which is pretty serious considering the consequences of that behaviour.

Not to say that I don't dislike Cheney / Rumsfeld more, but it's wrong to let those in the most powerful positions within the military off because they were 'simply following orders'. You'd expect that of all people the joint chiefs would show more integrity than that.

The role of the JCS is to provide military advice to the civilian leaders of the nation, as they are the ones who make the ultimate decisions. It is wholly up to those leaders whether or not they accept that advice in whole or in part, based on any number of reasons, keeping in mind that the focus of the JCS is on military issues--the civilian leaders have to make their decisions based on multifaceted information.

However, once the decision is made--whatever that decision is--the role of the military is to perform its mission as best it can. I believe that is the case in Afghanistan, given the diplomatic mess and lack of clear objective there. Much of the military mission has been "learning by discovery"...not a good way to operate, but you get there, eventually. Unfortunately, it's the way you must operate when you don't have clear objectives. You do the best you can with what you have, trying to save as many blue/gray lives as possible, while taking as many red objectives as possible, based on what you know/can learn about the enemy, within the constraints you've been given. Pretty sure that's what's happened in Afghanistan.

rdx-fx wrote:

Osama bin Laden?
In 1993 - The first time Al Quaeda tried to take down the WTC? no, Billy goat Clinton was too busy getting blown by his intern(s).
In 2001 or 2003 - No.  We have to .. um... let the native personnel "capture" him.  Nevermind, we're going after him for 9/11, nevermind having him surrounded and crying about losing, and have a whole damn pile of SF ODs surrounding the area.
In 2011 - oh, fine.. fine.. if you're so insistent... (Note - this was apparently near-insubordination by the SOCOM command to actually do this, White House didn't want to do it)

So what was the White House's game?

2 Years of pretending to try, followed by 5 years of failing.
Obama wraps it up in 2.

But, my dear Dilbert, that's exactly what we spend all that money on the Israelis for;
So they can explain the fine differences, in the only terms their neighbors seem to understand.

And the objective is what, bringing Jebus back to trigger Armageddon?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-22 02:03:56)

Dilbert_X wrote:

So what was the White House's game?

Exactly what was posted above.
In multiple ways, by multiple people.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the objective is what, bringing Jebus back to trigger Armageddon?

Seriously, must you shit on every thread, turning it into an anti-Israeli anti-semitic rant?

You have your Israel vs Palestine thread.
Go kvetch about "t3h evil j000s" there, please.