Taliban raid on Camp Bastion and loss of Harriers

[MicroBalrog]

Don't hold your breath for this war to be persecuted in a fashion with winning it being the goal.  Hasn't been the case since its inception.

That is not even possible because nobody even has a straight clue of how to define "victory".

[Jamisjockey]

That is not even possible because nobody even has a straight clue of how to define "victory".

We actually achieved the defined goals of victory quickly, that is overthrowing the taliban and installing a quasi-elected government.  But beyond that, the insurgent campagin continues.  Pursuing the insurgents into the countries that are harboring them (especially Pakistan) unfettered would be the only way to "win" any more.  Instead, we pussy foot around and the insurgents continue to bleed us.

[Tallpine]

This.  Let them rise up and overthrow their own oppressors.  If we really feel like getting involved, crates of surplus weapons and ammo can be airdropped cheap.

And bikinis for the wimmen 

[Ron]

And bikinis for the wimmen  

They would make their pubescent boys wear the bikinis.

[Fitz]

This.  Let them rise up and overthrow their own oppressors.  If we really feel like getting involved, crates of surplus weapons and ammo can be airdropped cheap.

We did this once. It resulted in the Taliban taking power

Read Ghost Wars. It'll make you face palm all day

[lupinus]

We did this once. It resulted in the Taliban taking power

Read Ghost Wars. It'll make you face palm all day

I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.

This, of course.

[SADShooter]

I'm all for Jamis' plan. But with the cavat, that we often overlook, of vetting and making sure the people you are supporting aren't as bad or worse then the people they are shooting.

But we seem incapable of this historically. I suspect that's a combination of general cultural bias and specific failures by the type of people (i.e. career diplomats) who do the vetting. A Christopher Stevens is an unfortunately rare bird in U.S. diplomatic service already, and then we sacrifice his kind to political expediency.

[Fitz]

But we seem incapable of this historically. I suspect that's a combination of general cultural bias and specific failures by the type of people (i.e. career diplomats) who do the vetting. A Christopher Stevens is an unfortunately rare bird in U.S. diplomatic service already, and then we sacrifice his kind to political expediency.

This


We had all the info we needed to KNOW who the moderate faction was when the soviets were there. We threw them under the bus because the radicals were stronger against the soviets, who were on their way out anyways.

[MicroBalrog]

This


We had all the info we needed to KNOW who the moderate faction was when the soviets were there. We threw them under the bus because the radicals were stronger against the soviets, who were on their way out anyways.

I've read in several sources that the US mostly supported the Northern Alliance/Massood, is that not true?

Either way, in the Cold War the US often supported some truly nasty factions because people saw Soviet victory in the Cold War as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Today we know the USSR was inherently weak and about to collapse, but back then most people expected it to last for generations.  Look at the reaction of American press to Goldwater's idea that America should try and bring freedom (that is, capitalism) to the Soviets - capitalism in Russia was ridiculed as a completely impossible notion.

But today the notion that 'we should support awful factions because they side with us' no longer has a moral justification, and the foreign policy experts are running about like headless chickens to try and come up with a new ideology to justify their meddling.

"Spread democracy" doesn't work because then people will ask why America is backing people like Mubarak or the Saudi government- and because an ideology of spreading freedom imposes moral constraints that these people are not willing to operate under.

"Defending against radical Islam" is better for their worldview because most Westerners are completely ignorant about the different branches of Islam and do not want to learn. At any time any faction can be labeled as "radical" or "moderate" Muslims at the whim of a newspaper editor.

[Fitz]

I've read in several sources that the US mostly supported the Northern Alliance/Massood, is that not true?

Either way, in the Cold War the US often supported some truly nasty factions because people saw Soviet victory in the Cold War as the worst thing that could possibly happen. Today we know the USSR was inherently weak and about to collapse, but back then most people expected it to last for generations.  Look at the reaction of American press to Goldwater's idea that America should try and bring freedom (that is, capitalism) to the Soviets - capitalism in Russia was ridiculed as a completely impossible notion.

But today the notion that 'we should support awful factions because they side with us' no longer has a moral justification, and the foreign policy experts are running about like headless chickens to try and come up with a new ideology to justify their meddling.

"Spread democracy" doesn't work because then people will ask why America is backing people like Mubarak or the Saudi government- and because an ideology of spreading freedom imposes moral constraints that these people are not willing to operate under.

"Defending against radical Islam" is better for their worldview because most Westerners are completely ignorant about the different branches of Islam and do not want to learn. At any time any faction can be labeled as "radical" or "moderate" Muslims at the whim of a newspaper editor.

For a while. Then we started playing games and supporting multiple sides, and allowed some very bad things to happen to the "good guys"

I forget all the details... I highly recommend that book i mentioned, Ghost wars. Also "The Human Factor"