The War on Terror
- Thread starter Esco!
- Start date
OK.........LOL. here it goes:
The U.S. has one of the strongest armies in the world, no doubting that.
Yes you could argue Russia is at par, but for sure America is ahead with their technology, I dont think you'll get too many arguments from military experts about that.
Having said all that though, it took Russia 3 weeks to conquer Afghanistan in 1980 (exactly the same time it took the U.S.) look it up in Wiki if you dont believe me.
So technology is all fine and dandy but in this case it didnt make a whole lot of difference, now did it??
So back to square one:
Russia conquered Afghanistan in 3 weeks with conventional weapons.
America conquered Afghanistan in 3 weeks with superior weapons (including smart bombs......etc). But with a lot less men loss!
Anywho, the whole point of this thread is this:
You can have the strongest army in the whole world, you can take literally weeks (or a few days) to conquer any country!!
But at the end of the day you have to hold on to whatever country you've "conquered" .
This ladies and Gentlemen, is the hard part
What you're seeing in Iraq is classic Guerilla warfare, it happened in Europe during Hitler's reign, and its happened in countless other countries throughout history!
The U.S. has one of the strongest armies in the world, no doubting that.
Yes you could argue Russia is at par, but for sure America is ahead with their technology, I dont think you'll get too many arguments from military experts about that.
Having said all that though, it took Russia 3 weeks to conquer Afghanistan in 1980 (exactly the same time it took the U.S.) look it up in Wiki if you dont believe me.
So technology is all fine and dandy but in this case it didnt make a whole lot of difference, now did it??
So back to square one:
Russia conquered Afghanistan in 3 weeks with conventional weapons.
America conquered Afghanistan in 3 weeks with superior weapons (including smart bombs......etc). But with a lot less men loss!
Anywho, the whole point of this thread is this:
You can have the strongest army in the whole world, you can take literally weeks (or a few days) to conquer any country!!
But at the end of the day you have to hold on to whatever country you've "conquered" .
This ladies and Gentlemen, is the hard part
What you're seeing in Iraq is classic Guerilla warfare, it happened in Europe during Hitler's reign, and its happened in countless other countries throughout history!
I disagree. People are always using Afghanistan as an example. Look up its history. DIdnt the Arab league hold that country for more than 1000 years before their influence naturally waned? Didnt England hold it for almost 100 years before its Empire shrank all over the world? I would say that those are pretty good indicators that a country can be held.Esco! said:
Why dont you ask how the North American Indians are doing in the war against the "White Man" to remove them from the US and Canada? Or the aboriginals in Austrailia?
To win a war, you DONT have to hold on to their country. US beat Japan in WW2. Italy was beat too. Germany lost France, etc because UK, US, Canada, Russia, etc stormed the beaches on D-Day. Do you really think if the Allies made a peace treaty to end WW2 in 1942 as a stalemate, that France could have removed the German War Machine from their country by themselves?...doubtful.
Good counter-argument and interesting examples, but consider this ...newguy27 said:
The White Man simply committed sufficient genocide on the N.A. Indians.
The US threatened (and exemplified) Japan with nuclear annihilation.
The Germans did not have political support in France (i.e. French Resistance).
The Brits may have been more adept at handling their colonies, but ultimately, those were lost (USA, India, Zulu wars, etc.).
So it would seem that at least from a historical perspective, the only way for the US to be truly victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be to exterminate them entirely, or make it clear that's what would happen.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I don't think Esco was attempting to comment on whether it was necessary to hold a country to win a war. If he meant that an occupying force ultimately can't be maintained in a country where it faces strong internal resistance, which is how I interpreted it, he is absolutely correct. This has become even more true in modern times, as the effectiveness of insurgent techniques has expanded. Look to the Russians, who thought they were invading a country of goat herders in Afghanistan, and found themselves in a bloody mess.newguy27 said:
It's nice to hear some intelligent responses (as opposed to some TOV-style insults).
Absolutely, it is difficult to hold onto a country when the population is resisting you. However, it surely can be done, it all depends on willpower and how far the leaders are willing to go to do so. In terms of Afghanistan, the war was already won. The Taliban were defeated. NATO's current mission is to help rebuild a democratic society, not to occupy it as conquerers. I'm sure NATO would love to leave, but for the sake of the people there, cant until they can ensure their own security.
The US would also LOVE to bring their troops home from Iraq too so they can have their ticker-tape parades, but until Iraq can ensure their own security against Islamic fanatics, they are staying. I dont think the US has ever said they want to conquer and govern Iraq as a US state.
If a country wants to occupy a defeated country, it takes a lot of effort and time but eventually, assimilation takes place over the course of years. Most of the modern countries today are examples of this. (Except for Quebec, who still refuses to accept that they are part of Canada!)
also, me thinks the US had a key role in getting USSR out of Afghanistan..rather than just the strong spirit of the "goat herders".
Absolutely, it is difficult to hold onto a country when the population is resisting you. However, it surely can be done, it all depends on willpower and how far the leaders are willing to go to do so. In terms of Afghanistan, the war was already won. The Taliban were defeated. NATO's current mission is to help rebuild a democratic society, not to occupy it as conquerers. I'm sure NATO would love to leave, but for the sake of the people there, cant until they can ensure their own security.
The US would also LOVE to bring their troops home from Iraq too so they can have their ticker-tape parades, but until Iraq can ensure their own security against Islamic fanatics, they are staying. I dont think the US has ever said they want to conquer and govern Iraq as a US state.
If a country wants to occupy a defeated country, it takes a lot of effort and time but eventually, assimilation takes place over the course of years. Most of the modern countries today are examples of this. (Except for Quebec, who still refuses to accept that they are part of Canada!)
also, me thinks the US had a key role in getting USSR out of Afghanistan..rather than just the strong spirit of the "goat herders".
Yes thats basically what I meant.Asterix said:
Here's how I would have handled the war on terror:
Park 3 aircraft carriers in the gulf to handle Iraq, park another 3 near the shores of Pakistan to handle Afghanistan.
Now every time your intelligence operatives says one of these terrorist camps is springing up in either country you send half your fricking airplanes over there and bomb the smithereens out of them.
If necessary you carpetbomb the place!
This way you never have to enter a country and engage in guerilla warfare, you never have boots on the ground, the entire war on terror is conducted from the air.
Much like the Serb-Kosovo war played out. Clinton never had any intention of any ground war.
Anywho, thats my strategy, let the flaming begin
Air power is overrated, but one way or another we've got to get ourselves out of there. The surge was supposed to buy time for the Iraqi government to come to grips with a political solution. This past week the Sunni members of the Cabinet walked out, and the entire Parliament went on a month long vacation. I'm sorry, but this is getting more than a little bit silly. Let them bloody figure it out on their own, they've had plenty of chances. Best of luck to them. It's hard for me to accept that they are serious about any kind of joint government.
I agree but I doubt it'll happen under Bush's watch, my guess the U.S. will wait till the next govt is in power before they pull out of Iraq (and perhaps Afghanistan also).Asterix said:
This way they can say...see Bush was wrong and we're correcting the problem.
Face saving plan will work best under a Democrat prez, but less so for a GOP prez
The war there was won on the ground, largely because the Serbs had overstretched the area they could control. Bombing is only truly effective if you're willing to completely obliterate your foe, which is a fond fantasy of many in this forum. Lancslad, I'm looking in your direction.Esco! said:
Not necessairly, the U.S. has those fancy smart bombs, they can pin-prick you to death.Asterix said:
If that doesnt work you carpet-bomb the f__ckers to kingdom come.
Take your pick, I'm sure either one will work much better then the mess we got right now
(and when I say we I mean NATO and its allies; led by the U.S.).
Asterix said:
As a staunch fan of Bomber Harris and his ideas for dealing with Germany I still must say that air power alone will not win a war. You need boots on the ground to put the foot on the opponents throat. That said winning a war and long term occupation are different matters. Beating Germany into submission was needed to break the nazi grip on the country. Once that was done the majority of the population while not madly in love with the occupying Allied forces was at least not openly hostile. There were terror groups but they were minor in nature. germany was, after all, in most respects very similar to us.
Iraq and afghan are different stories altogether.
It is a waste of our soldiers lives to loose them a few at a time to an unseen enemy that hides in the shadows, strikes and runs. The populace is not with us on this one ( at last the majority isn't) so I would just make a graceful exit then lay waste to the whole farking place. After the dust and smoke cleared the world at large would not miss anything at all that those countries produced , except be glad for the quiet.
