One of the frustrating things about the war in Iraq is that, besides the defeat of a pizz-ant dictator and his third rate army, there was no victory over any of the other enemies that are in Iraq.

American troops were successful in bringing down the violence that was out of control in 2006, but every group that killed Americans at that time still exist, weakened, but able to reconstitute - that includes a branch of America’s number one enemy, al Qaeda in Iraq.

What was finally settled on in Iraq was, in the words of President Bush “Success is not no violence.” When “all American forces” leave Iraq on 12-31-11, as is required by the agreement that President Bush signed, our enemies will still be on the battlefield – there will be no victory.

Now the same situation is being set up in Afghanistan.

In testimony last week before the Armed Services Committee, Admiral Mullin never said the word victory or a phrase such as we will win, where Afghanistan was concerned. He said we would be successful.

For the military, success is bringing the violence down to manageable levels, then hoping that the nation building is also successful.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: "You're our leader. You're telling us that if we -- we've got a strategy you believe in. If we get it resourced the way that General McChrystal needs, we think we can win?"

ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN: "We can succeed, yes, sir."

Success is reducing the violence, not defeating the enemy.

Defeating an enemy means to kill or capture as many of the enemy as possible and destroying their ability to conduct war – al Qaeda is the enemy that would attack us.

That is where the disconnect comes in.

Most Americans will support a war against an enemy, they will no support a long, drawn out counter insurgency against people who are no threat to America.

It is possible to defeat al Qaeda, which is what President Obama says is the “clear and focused goal” in Afghanistan.

More than three thousand years of history tells us that it is not possible to defeat the Taliban insurgency.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

The problem is that we don't have the stomach to really win. We are humane and compassionate, and not willing to stoop to their level. I for one think that's a good thing. But shy of exterminating them or building an economic power house where everyone has a job other than militia member or heroin farmer there is no chance for total victory in the sense you portray.

quote:

The problem is that we don't have the stomach to really win.

Win what? What does winning look like?

But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

The problem with fighting an insurgency is you do not know who the enemy is. You could stoop to their (the enemy’s level) kill lots of civilians – and still not defeat the insurgency.

Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

Not going to argue that we should keep doing this as we should. But simply killing the leadership does not defeat the enemy. Otherwise, you could say we have defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

No but they will draw us into regions where we will have to deal with an insurgency in order to operate.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

To the best of my knowledge that is what we've been doing for the past 8 years.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

Greatly! Just like it did the Soviets. We are on the same path in Afghanistan. But we must deny them this land too. I think there are better ways to do so then to try and build a nation. But they may not be very humane.

quote:

Most Americans will support a war against an enemy, they will not support a long, drawn out counter insurgency against people who are no threat to America.

So..., those three clowns (Aziz, his father and some hairbrain "double-agent type" mullah) that were RECENTLY picked up by the FBI HERE IN THE GOOD OLE USA are no threat to America . . .

So..., the peaceful, muslim, extremists Al Qaeda people recruiting "within the borders of USA" are no threat to America . . .

Really . . .

this is all interesting but i do believe someone said it best when fighting something like this. there's a simple way to win the war on terrorism, although us americans would never go there on that level, personally i would. in order to fight fire and win you have to fight fire with fire. we learned that lesson in a small south east asia country in the 60's and 70's and yet no one ever accepted that doctrine. so in oder to fight terrorism you mush fight terrorism with well, terrorism. kill them before they kill you. its simple really. why dont we do it?

What does winning look like? How do we know when we've won?

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

The problem with fighting an insurgency is you do not know who the enemy is. You could stoop to their (the enemy’s level) kill lots of civilians – and still not defeat the insurgency.

Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

The A-stan fight is not for our General Purpose Forces primarily, it is for our SOF. The Brigade Combat Teams would be better suited to deny insurgents and their logistics the border crossings into and out of A-stan. Thus, allow the SOF to conduct Foreign Internal Defense Activities, and US State Department/UN/NGOs/etc for Nation Building Operations...

The only way to defeat the Al Qaeda is to islolate them from their supplies/reconstitution of manpower/money outside A-stan... Clean up a province, i.e., Helmand, insert ANA, provide a solid civilian police force, then isolate it from the other provinces until mission complete (all provinces clean)... Deny resurgence in a previously "clean" province, one at a time... The border into/out of Pakistan is too porous!

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

Not going to argue that we should keep doing this as we should. But simply killing the leadership does not defeat the enemy. Otherwise, you could say we have defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The leadership of al Qaeda was never in Iraq. They are in Pakistan.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

No but they will draw us into regions where we will have to deal with an insurgency in order to operate.

Dealing with an insurgency is different from trying to defeat an insurgency. Some areas can be secured, some cannot. The secure areas can be used to have bases from which we hunt and kill al Qaeda, and some Taliban if necessary. Some areas the Taliban will control. But if they let al Qaeda set up bases, we destroy the bases.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

To the best of my knowledge that is what we've been doing for the past 8 years.

For most of that eight years, the Bush Administation did not do a good job fighting in A-stan – that is why the Taliban are so strong today. In March 2008, CIA Director Hayden reported that al Qaeda has safe havens in Pakistan and that they were a “clear and present danger” to the United States.
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/31/MNM8VT24G.DTL&hw=pervez&sn=064&sc=188

Before that time, there had been only eight drone strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan. After that the strikes picked up. Now the reports are that al Qaeda is weakened.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/al-qaida-recruitment-crisis

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

Greatly! Just like it did the Soviets. We are on the same path in Afghanistan. But we must deny them this land too. I think there are better ways to do so then to try and build a nation. But they may not be very humane.

Why must we deny the Taliban a piece of Afghanistan, as long as we have a piece also and will attack them if they allow al Qaeda to set up shop?

President Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum right before the invasion of Afghanistan, which the Taliban ignored. Supposedly, if the Taliban had met the demands, they would be in power right now. They would just be one of many harsh regimes that are of no threat to the United States at all.

If we learn from history and understand that the Taliban cannot be defeated as an insurgency, we have two choices:

1. Fight to prop up a corrupt Afghan government for another ten years, then declare victory and go home – in which case the Taliban will take over the government.

2. Force the Taliban to the bargaining table with a show of strength – maybe they become part of a coalition government, maybe they take over part of the country. In either case we stay until al Qaeda is no longer a threat.

The second choice saves lives, time and money – and focuses our efforts on the enemy who would attack us, al Qaeda.

It would paralell our Vietnam history...

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:
What does winning look like? How do we know when we've won?

The sun will shine and the birds will sing!

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

Not going to argue that we should keep doing this as we should. But simply killing the leadership does not defeat the enemy. Otherwise, you could say we have defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The leadership of al Qaeda was never in Iraq. They are in Pakistan.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

No but they will draw us into regions where we will have to deal with an insurgency in order to operate.

Dealing with an insurgency is different from trying to defeat an insurgency. Some areas can be secured, some cannot. The secure areas can be used to have bases from which we hunt and kill al Qaeda, and some Taliban if necessary. Some areas the Taliban will control. But if they let al Qaeda set up bases, we destroy the bases.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

To the best of my knowledge that is what we've been doing for the past 8 years.

For most of that eight years, the Bush Administation did not do a good job fighting in A-stan – that is why the Taliban are so strong today. In March 2008, CIA Director Hayden reported that al Qaeda has safe havens in Pakistan and that they were a “clear and present danger” to the United States.
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/31/MNM8VT24G.DTL&hw=pervez&sn=064&sc=188

Before that time, there had been only eight drone strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan. After that the strikes picked up. Now the reports are that al Qaeda is weakened.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/10/al-qaida-recruitment-crisis

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

Greatly! Just like it did the Soviets. We are on the same path in Afghanistan. But we must deny them this land too. I think there are better ways to do so then to try and build a nation. But they may not be very humane.

Why must we deny the Taliban a piece of Afghanistan, as long as we have a piece also and will attack them if they allow al Qaeda to set up shop?

President Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum right before the invasion of Afghanistan, which the Taliban ignored. Supposedly, if the Taliban had met the demands, they would be in power right now. They would just be one of many harsh regimes that are of no threat to the United States at all.

If we learn from history and understand that the Taliban cannot be defeated as an insurgency, we have two choices:

1. Fight to prop up a corrupt Afghan government for another ten years, then declare victory and go home – in which case the Taliban will take over the government.

2. Force the Taliban to the bargaining table with a show of strength – maybe they become part of a coalition government, maybe they take over part of the country. In either case we stay until al Qaeda is no longer a threat.

The second choice saves lives, time and money – and focuses our efforts on the enemy who would attack us, al Qaeda.

Al qaeda leadership was never in Iraq?

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Mousab_al-Zarqawi

Don't forget about this shzthead who was killed

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:

quote:

Most Americans will support a war against an enemy, they will not support a long, drawn out counter insurgency against people who are no threat to America.

So..., those three clowns (Aziz, his father and some hairbrain "double-agent type" mullah) that were RECENTLY picked up by the FBI HERE IN THE GOOD OLE USA are no threat to America . . .

So..., the peaceful, muslim, extremists Al Qaeda people recruiting "within the borders of USA" are no threat to America . . .

Really . . .

Right over your head..yet again. Try and look at the big picture. CRIPES!!!!!

This is one day in Iraq - what some people call success:

Reported Security incidents: September 28, 2009
>>http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/

Baghdad:
#1: A roadside bomb struck an Iraqi army patrol in a western Baghdad neighborhood on Monday, killing three soldiers and wounding 15 people, a well-informed police source said. The blast took place at the Ghazaliyah neighborhood on Monday afternoon when a makeshift bomb hit a convoy of military vehicles, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity. The bomb destroyed one of the vehicles, killing three soldiers and wounding four others aboard, he said, adding that 11 civilians who were close to the scene were also wounded.

"An IED (improvised-explosive device) targeted an army patrol in Ghazaliyah, wounding just one civilian and causing some damage," said an interior ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "As the army and some civilians gathered and police arrived on the scene, another IED exploded nearby, minutes later." "The bombs killed three soldiers and wounded 28 people."


Amarra:
#1: The Batira military airport was hit by Katyusha rockets during a late hour last night, a local security source said on Monday. “Five Katyusha rockets targeted the airport (10 km northwest of Amara), causing no casualties or damage,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. “Two missiles were fired from al-Dawajin area (3 km north of Amara), while three others were fired from a park in downtown Amara city,” the source pointed out.


Saniya:
#1: A bomb planted on a minibus south of Baghdad killed six people and wounded two others on Monday, Iraqi police said. The bomb was planted on the rear part of the vehicle, which was travelling in an area just north of Diwaniya, 150 kilometres south of Baghdad. All those killed in the attack, which took place in the small town of Saniya, were passengers, police said.

Eight civilians on Monday were killed or wounded when an explosive charge went off north of Diwaniya province, according to a local security source. “Today, a sticky improvised explosive device (IED) hit a bus coming from Babel province in al-Saneyya district (15 km north of Diwaniya), killing six civilians and injuring two others,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.


Mosul:
#1: Police in northern Iraq on Monday found the bodies of four Kurdish peshmerga militiamen executed by the side of a road near Mosul, police told Baghdad's Buratha news agency. Police on a regular patrol of the road between Mosul and the nearby town of Tel Afar found the four bodies with multiple gunshot wounds to the head, the news agency reported, and brought them to Tel Afar for return to their families.

#2: A bomb detonated in west Mosul on Sunday afternoon injuring a civilian.


Al Anbar Prv:
#1: A bomb that was planted inside rubbish container near Fallujah high school in downtown Fallujah city west of Baghdad detonated around 10 a.m. injuring four civilians including two children.

#2: A bomb detonated in downtown Fallujah city on Sunday morning targeting police patrol. No casualties were reported.

#3: Two emergency policemen were killed and six others were injured in a suicide bombing that targeted their base near Ramadi city, a security source said on Monday. “A suicide bomber driving a tanker rigged with explosives detonated himself near an emergency police base in al-Kilo 35 area, west of Ramadi area,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.


Would an all out counter insurgency produce anything better in Afghanistan?

The answer is no.

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

The problem with fighting an insurgency is you do not know who the enemy is. You could stoop to their (the enemy’s level) kill lots of civilians – and still not defeat the insurgency.

Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

What is your deal? What are you really looking for, really? One can objectively criticize every aspect of the GWOT including the Phillipines, Columbia, and even the Zazi arrest. So in your estimation what out of the whole bloody affair is critique-proof and worthy of replication?

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:

quote:

Originally posted by xerello:
But we have stooped to al Qaeda’s level, and it is working. With the use of drones we have bombed and killed al Qaeda leaders as they sit in their homes, or drive around in their cars. We have even attacked a funeral where many al Qaeda fighters were killed. The operation in Somalia last week – outstanding! They even recovered the body of the bad guy to confirm the kill.

The problem with fighting an insurgency is you do not know who the enemy is. You could stoop to their (the enemy’s level) kill lots of civilians – and still not defeat the insurgency.

Al Qaeda is not an insurgency. They do not want to take over any government. They want a place from which to launch attacks on the west.

Deny al Qaeda safe havens, disrupt their financing and communications, continue to kill and capture them. That is all possible and will keep America safe.

Fighting to defeat an insurgency does not keep America safe, it weakens us.

What is your deal? What are you really looking for, really? One can objectively criticize every aspect of the GWOT including the Phillipines, Columbia, and even the Zazi arrest. So in your estimation what out of the whole bloody affair is critique-proof and worthy of replication?

What I am looking for is to not get bogged down fighting an insurgency while trying to build one of the ten poorest countries in the world into a stable democracy while fighting an enemy that has never been defeated. That’s all.

My post above was not criticism. The first paragraph is about the outstanding job that drones and SOF have done in killing the enemy.

The rest is about the reality of fighting an insurgency and why an fighting the Taliban is not necessary to kill al Qaeda.

Yeah I get that, what threw me was where you seemed to accept the necessity of denying safe haven while denying the necessity of 'nation-building'.. what other tactic did you have in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by godawgz:
Yeah I get that, what threw me was where you seemed to accept the necessity of denying safe haven while denying the necessity of 'nation-building'.. what other tactic did you have in mind?

Nation building on a small scale.
Little Afghanistan

More emphasis on waging war on those who would attack America.
Kill al Qaeda

Yeah, I responded to the Little A-stan idea on the other thread, albeit in a fairly flaccid way.. all I can say for sure about a-stan is 'thank god i'm not the one with that decision on my shoulders'.. I had a similar thought but more in lines of time than geography.. periodic surges to push back the talibs, followed by long periods of laying on them at a lower more sustainably level until the reformation took root in a few decades.. sort of taking advantage of the same 'battle pulses' that have always favored the insurgents in the past....