Indeed. I used to be part of an anti-terrorist task force, and we used to do red cell (opfor) runs, in the process training various government and foreign military's. One of my favorite exercises would be when we would use large amounts of guys posing as civilian protesters (who often rode the razors edge of violence) and heavily distracted the protecting force. One time, when using this method on a fake embassy, my guys were able to get me inside the wire, and I was able to wreak havoc (theoretical) on the installation. We learned some very good lessons about distraction and unconventional entry methods, and were able to recommend measures that I believe have since been taken up as SOP. Without thinking like your enemy, and everyone in between, you are simply blind and willfully ignorant. That being said, I have come to the conclusion that some people just have the natural ability to think "outside the box", but we need more of them. (as a side note, eventually they caught me inside the wire, and my fellows howled with laughter as I ran away with a squad of reaction force chasing me with batons and OC spray, eventually catching up with me and leaving me zip tied and slightly bloodied, only to have them get distracted again, and me able to get out of my ziptie and escape!)
The problem is that this is not an isolated event, we have a history of false flag attacks, overthrowing of governments, and economic subversion that effectively undermines our position. What it really boils down is that we are only interested in ourselves, but we tell the public good stories about justice and democracy to get their support. Almost never is it true. As a matter of fact, we have even been active in terrorist operations earlier than anyone in the ME (Operation Gladio for starters, etc)
As a person who has been extensively studying "the situation" in the middle east, I can tell you that the Soviets had jack shit to do with our deposition of Mossadegh, and oil was literally 99.99% of the reason. Anyone who things otherwise simply has not even skimmed the histories (even ours admits this, but in as terse a manner as possible as to move on to the next part). I have come to the conclusion that the Iran coup is at the epicenter of the modern problems in the ME, and I am convinced this is why interventionalism(?) never has and more than likely never will work. We simply lack the foresight to predict what the long term results of our actions will be, due to the structure and timing of our government and politicians, and the decidedly lacking amount of education advisers have. What I mean by this, is, it is quite difficult to expect the president, or VP, or SoS to know every little detail of the middle east, or any other issue. They consult advisers, who then consult more advisers. It is these politically motivated short term advisers that wade in the shadows that have truly corrupted our constitutional republic. On top of all this, Iran really isn't that bad. Robert Baer (speaks farsi, feels more at home in the middle east, former spook) says that while yes in the 80's Iran was using attrition by proxy to achieve terrorist like goals, for example, the IJO (they killed and tortured his good friend Bill Buckley), was according to Baer, a front for Iran, not Hezbollah. And even after this he believes they have evolved into a strategic power. The crazy people like Ahmadinejad are relatively powerless 'talking heads', and we focus on them because the fulfill our blind idea of what we think Iran is (evil), but it really is far from this. My proposal, stop all sanctions, make a move that is an overwhelming gesture of friendship, and open up political, diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with them. If they truly are our enemy, then by doing this we can have better access to the country for spying, will have better intel on their various programs, and will generally be in a more advantageous strategic position. If they are not, then hey we just made a new friend. But, if instead of them being our enemy, we are theirs (and there is a difference), this would never happen. Did you know that we, the USA, literally gave Iran the plans for a nuclear weapon? (with a small defect, but the Soviet spy said they would be able to find and fix it relatively easily). Did you know that by invading Iraq we empowered Iran? Did you know, there is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. Did you know Iran has a Jewish pop of 25,000? Did you now, the notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s? Did you know the NPT says "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, (admittedly has acted questionably with inspections) it is acting within its rights. No, I bet you didn't know at least one of those things, now try asking a politician those things. I bet they don't have a clue. In short, if we don't end up revising our strategic plan (if we even have one) for relations with Iran, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot in the long run. And for those of you who thing war with Iran is even an option, I can guarantee you one thing if that ever happens, and it is depression (not another recession, but full blow depression), and likely WW3...
Except the charges have already been withdrawn. My (completely made up) guess, is that the girls were seen having "relations" during US surveillance, who then turned around and offered them money or something similar to throw some charges at him. As soon as the charges were filed, the US had already leaked the rumors of the charges to major newspapers (one must look at the timing of all this). It seems either Assange or some other entity either forced the police to do some very fast and good work and drop the case, or the police threatened the girls with the Swedish 1 year in jail for false accusation of rape, who then withdrew their charges. Just my two cents though =).
Haha! Gotta love it, the charges have already been withdrawn! This proves that the Swedes thought the case "had no merit" and that something fishy was and is indeed going on. I find it quite hilarious to review the majority of the posts about it now, in retrospect...
Another USMC Iraq vet here, and I agree. As a matter of fact, when I have time I am love playing ARMA II: OA, one of the most realistic milsims I have ever seen, which portrays Tajiks instead of Afghans. In training for CQB, a few of us would split into the Opfor, and be the bad guys, it gives you valuable insight into how the enemy operates and thinks, and gives those training a more realistic if bleak representation of the real thing (when you realize that 5 guys properly setup in an ambush can easily take out (via simunition) almost a whole platoon before being captured, it is quite an eye opener. I digress, but the point is that this is nothing new to the gaming community or the even the military in general. I feel for her, but she is attacking the freedom for which her son stood (I refuse to say "that we are fighting for in OIF OEF" because that is a load of bollocks, and another matter entirely), and makes no sense.
If you so much as casually browsed the documents you would be hard pressed to not see a 10dig. Why should one make so much effort for you when you obviously make so little for yourself? Ok it's just because I'm grumpy... here ya go. http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2004/06/AFG20040602n14.html
I feel as one who is telling everyone but so few listen. You are absolutely right (I am a former USMC Iraq combat vet btw) when you say that it cannot withstand questioning. We must ask the most fundamental questions here.Whil I would love to take the time to answer them here and now, and bust many bubbles, I will leave it to the reader. Why are we in Iraq/Afghan? What is the end goal? What would constitute success? What are the chances of that happening? Where is the greatest threat to national security coming from? How much are we spending? (944b) How many lives are being lost on all sides? Is the current rate of progress sustainable? What does history say about these countries and cultures in relation to war? What are our long term political and strategic goals for the ME? These are only a few of the question, that when answered honestly, instantly reveal the pure imbecility of pursuing the paths that we have. The problem? Its that those in power are doing a good job at maintaining that power, that those below them don't have enough courage to stand up for what is right, and the general apathy and pure stupidity of the American public (political republicans, democrats, and those in between are too busy fighting partisan battles to wake up, and are if anything even more to blame for the current situation, by having failed in their "due diligence") Bah, sometimes it seems like we are still, as Hitchens says, in "the bawling infancy of our species" and I'm fucking tired of it.
I have mod points, but I'd rather comment =) This is one of the underlying factors in my studies that very voraciously rears it head. When, in the course of the years, we support the brutish and barbaric dictators in one part of the world, but then claim our righteousness against others, declaring they must be taken down " at all costs" we undermine what little support the world general population already has for us. Look, by now, many of us have come to understand these wars are ridiculous exercises in futility, covered in lies and wrapped in deceit. The question that one must ask when presented with the dilemma of your comment about principle, is that, if we are being selective about which "evil" to destroy, what is the reason for that selectivity? The most obvious of answers are of a matter not having anything to do with principle or ethics or morality, but rather fundamental, although questionable, issues of (inter)national power, influence, resources, and the maintaining of them.
I have actually been analyzing the documents, and thanks to a tip from another/.er, I have found at least 25 names (tip: look in medcap category) So while I have and still am waiting to see some sort of official analysis with hard numbers to come out, I can tell you there are more than 3. I'm a semi-supporter of the leaks (it's complicated), but just thought I'd throw some real info your way.
Simply put, I agree. It doesn't matter that I with my limited time and resources have'nt previously been able to find names (and thanks to the above poster I have found at least 25 using some key search strings) What I am stating is that we need to know hard data, exactly how many names are released? What is their relevance in the context given? I must say I am disappointed that Wikileaks did'nt sanitize it better.
Half-life was my original love when it comes to PC games. That I am still able to say after all these years that I truly trust Valve that whatever the next installment and ones after that will be of superb quality and lots of fun, not to mention with awesome new modding potential. Valve and by extension Steam is a bastion of the pc gamer industry, despite its often pointed out flaws (usually said to be DRM and longevity)
You make a good point. Taking a step back and looking at this as objectively as possible, it would seem all guilt of crime lays on the leaker themselves, not the "messenger". Is a citizen of another country bound to US law? I would think not, so then I would have to wonder what kind of mutual "law" his country of citizenship shares with the US, or maybe if there is an international law covering such matters?
Because the true crime is at the highest levels (I my tracing of "blame" I consistently end up at the Joint Chiefs, other generals, and primarily the former VP and SoD) and those people still have a lot of power in D.C.
We provide more direct aid to the Taliban than these documents do. We fund Warlords directly, we fund Pakistan, we fund ISI, we fund parts of the Karzai regime (yes it is a regime), we fund Militant Talibs from the haqqani network to Paki Talibs indirectly.And this is now, today, this does not include the massive amounts of funding and training that not just us but the Sauds et al gave to the mujaheddin in the 80's. We are our own worst enemy.
I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."
Where in my post does it indicate I have "fallen" for the excuses for war? I certainly haven't, and even the claim of mineral resources is well, irrelevant. There is no oil, but some major pipelines have been proposed and some are built, and continue to have issues. The deposit of minerals is pure PR spin, if it costs us 944 billion dollars (on OEF/OIF since 9/11) and there is 1 trillion worth of minerals, how is that smart?
As a USMC Iraq combat vet, who has for the past few months been studying the Afghan situation extensively, I can say that this is a good thing. Anybody who is actually involved knows that the Paki, and more specifically ISI, have been a problem for us since the early 80's, and not much has changed. The Paki's have and will continue to say "What? Not us!" but they are full of shit. The fact that the politicians are relatively good at hiding this fact undermines the general public's knowledge about the situation, and therefore it is a major part of controlling public opinion about our war. The facts are that we send money to ISI (often bypassing paki authorities completely) who then have (sometimes rogue) officers directly funding everything from afghan warlords, to Al Queda, to Paki Talibs, and on down the line. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan has absolutely no interest in really getting rid of their extremists, on either border, because Islamabad has so much fear of India, the militants are a tool they plan to use if needed. They will only do enough to keep our money flowing to them, but not enough to truly alienate the extremists. Its enormously complicated, with factors such as Iran and Russia playing into the equation. Regardless, I just hope that Assange did a good enough job purging of intel that could jeopardize people, but when so much is being hid, this kind of knowledge should be made public, albeit perhaps a bit with a bit more ambiguous information. But the real interest here is that that at the moment, as do many of the officers and enlisted I have talked to who are active in "Ganny" agree that we should not be there. First, not only does history show us that attempted conquer after attempted conquer, (including Russia, the British, and Rome as the most cited examples) Afghanistan is not a place that has ever been receptive to foreign rule. Second, our objectives are far too abstract. I often hear conflicting statements from politicians, some say we are there to prevent a safe haven for terrorists, but if that is the case, there are more AQ in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, and especially Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan. Not to mention the amount of funding flowing from third parties with interest in AQ and AQ like organizations that we do little about. We even fund the militant talibs with protection money for convoys! Others say we are there to help prevent Pakistan being overrun with terrorists (who we are afraid will attempt to take control of Paki's nukes), but if that is the case, why are we not forcing ISI and Paki to help destroy these enemies? It is because, as I said before, they don't want to! Others say we are there to help restore the people of Afghanistan to a "Representative Government" but I have multiple problems with this. One, the culture is not conductive to such things, there is far too much fighting between Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, Foreign Arabs, et al. If they don't even claim to be Afghan, but rather claim their ethnicity, how can they unite to rule themselves? Sure we could do it for them, but we would be there for another 150+ years. Not something I think we are willing to do. The other question this brings up, is, "Where do you stop in your effort to "liberate" peoples from oppression?" I have been places I might consider worse than Iraq or Afghanistan (usually in Africa). So should we be "liberating" the people of Darfur(in Sudan), Somalia (I thought we learned our lesson there, apparently not with recent events) etc? I have said it before, and I will say it again, tactically, our military is pretty much capable of anything you throw at them. It is strategically that we have failed, and I blame this on a handful of issues. A few of these being, a blatant disrespect for learning histories lessons, the infiltration of the military system with political "control/influence", and the lack of ranks above 0-6 not having the balls to tell truth to power, because once you get stars on, your are no longer military, you are a politician (With a few exc
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I used to be part of an anti-terrorist task force, and we used to do red cell (opfor) runs, in the process training various government and foreign military's. One of my favorite exercises would be when we would use large amounts of guys posing as civilian protesters (who often rode the razors edge of violence) and heavily distracted the protecting force. One time, when using this method on a fake embassy, my guys were able to get me inside the wire, and I was able to wreak havoc (theoretical) on the installation. We learned some very good lessons about distraction and unconventional entry methods, and were able to recommend measures that I believe have since been taken up as SOP. Without thinking like your enemy, and everyone in between, you are simply blind and willfully ignorant. That being said, I have come to the conclusion that some people just have the natural ability to think "outside the box", but we need more of them. (as a side note, eventually they caught me inside the wire, and my fellows howled with laughter as I ran away with a squad of reaction force chasing me with batons and OC spray, eventually catching up with me and leaving me zip tied and slightly bloodied, only to have them get distracted again, and me able to get out of my ziptie and escape!)
The problem is that this is not an isolated event, we have a history of false flag attacks, overthrowing of governments, and economic subversion that effectively undermines our position. What it really boils down is that we are only interested in ourselves, but we tell the public good stories about justice and democracy to get their support. Almost never is it true. As a matter of fact, we have even been active in terrorist operations earlier than anyone in the ME (Operation Gladio for starters, etc)
Yep, and yet people continue to believe old news lies.(they they have admittedly, but understandably, been a bit sketchy with inspections though)
As a person who has been extensively studying "the situation" in the middle east, I can tell you that the Soviets had jack shit to do with our deposition of Mossadegh, and oil was literally 99.99% of the reason. Anyone who things otherwise simply has not even skimmed the histories (even ours admits this, but in as terse a manner as possible as to move on to the next part). I have come to the conclusion that the Iran coup is at the epicenter of the modern problems in the ME, and I am convinced this is why interventionalism(?) never has and more than likely never will work. We simply lack the foresight to predict what the long term results of our actions will be, due to the structure and timing of our government and politicians, and the decidedly lacking amount of education advisers have. What I mean by this, is, it is quite difficult to expect the president, or VP, or SoS to know every little detail of the middle east, or any other issue. They consult advisers, who then consult more advisers. It is these politically motivated short term advisers that wade in the shadows that have truly corrupted our constitutional republic. On top of all this, Iran really isn't that bad. Robert Baer (speaks farsi, feels more at home in the middle east, former spook) says that while yes in the 80's Iran was using attrition by proxy to achieve terrorist like goals, for example, the IJO (they killed and tortured his good friend Bill Buckley), was according to Baer, a front for Iran, not Hezbollah. And even after this he believes they have evolved into a strategic power. The crazy people like Ahmadinejad are relatively powerless 'talking heads', and we focus on them because the fulfill our blind idea of what we think Iran is (evil), but it really is far from this. My proposal, stop all sanctions, make a move that is an overwhelming gesture of friendship, and open up political, diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with them. If they truly are our enemy, then by doing this we can have better access to the country for spying, will have better intel on their various programs, and will generally be in a more advantageous strategic position. If they are not, then hey we just made a new friend. But, if instead of them being our enemy, we are theirs (and there is a difference), this would never happen. Did you know that we, the USA, literally gave Iran the plans for a nuclear weapon? (with a small defect, but the Soviet spy said they would be able to find and fix it relatively easily). Did you know that by invading Iraq we empowered Iran? Did you know, there is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. Did you know Iran has a Jewish pop of 25,000? Did you now, the notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s? Did you know the NPT says "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, (admittedly has acted questionably with inspections) it is acting within its rights. No, I bet you didn't know at least one of those things, now try asking a politician those things. I bet they don't have a clue. In short, if we don't end up revising our strategic plan (if we even have one) for relations with Iran, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot in the long run. And for those of you who thing war with Iran is even an option, I can guarantee you one thing if that ever happens, and it is depression (not another recession, but full blow depression), and likely WW3...
Except the charges have already been withdrawn. My (completely made up) guess, is that the girls were seen having "relations" during US surveillance, who then turned around and offered them money or something similar to throw some charges at him. As soon as the charges were filed, the US had already leaked the rumors of the charges to major newspapers (one must look at the timing of all this). It seems either Assange or some other entity either forced the police to do some very fast and good work and drop the case, or the police threatened the girls with the Swedish 1 year in jail for false accusation of rape, who then withdrew their charges. Just my two cents though =).
Haha! Gotta love it, the charges have already been withdrawn! This proves that the Swedes thought the case "had no merit" and that something fishy was and is indeed going on. I find it quite hilarious to review the majority of the posts about it now, in retrospect...
Another USMC Iraq vet here, and I agree. As a matter of fact, when I have time I am love playing ARMA II: OA, one of the most realistic milsims I have ever seen, which portrays Tajiks instead of Afghans. In training for CQB, a few of us would split into the Opfor, and be the bad guys, it gives you valuable insight into how the enemy operates and thinks, and gives those training a more realistic if bleak representation of the real thing (when you realize that 5 guys properly setup in an ambush can easily take out (via simunition) almost a whole platoon before being captured, it is quite an eye opener. I digress, but the point is that this is nothing new to the gaming community or the even the military in general. I feel for her, but she is attacking the freedom for which her son stood (I refuse to say "that we are fighting for in OIF OEF" because that is a load of bollocks, and another matter entirely), and makes no sense.
NOSCRIPT
If you so much as casually browsed the documents you would be hard pressed to not see a 10dig. Why should one make so much effort for you when you obviously make so little for yourself? Ok it's just because I'm grumpy... here ya go. http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2004/06/AFG20040602n14.html
I feel as one who is telling everyone but so few listen. You are absolutely right (I am a former USMC Iraq combat vet btw) when you say that it cannot withstand questioning. We must ask the most fundamental questions here.Whil I would love to take the time to answer them here and now, and bust many bubbles, I will leave it to the reader. Why are we in Iraq/Afghan? What is the end goal? What would constitute success? What are the chances of that happening? Where is the greatest threat to national security coming from? How much are we spending? (944b) How many lives are being lost on all sides? Is the current rate of progress sustainable? What does history say about these countries and cultures in relation to war? What are our long term political and strategic goals for the ME? These are only a few of the question, that when answered honestly, instantly reveal the pure imbecility of pursuing the paths that we have. The problem? Its that those in power are doing a good job at maintaining that power, that those below them don't have enough courage to stand up for what is right, and the general apathy and pure stupidity of the American public (political republicans, democrats, and those in between are too busy fighting partisan battles to wake up, and are if anything even more to blame for the current situation, by having failed in their "due diligence") Bah, sometimes it seems like we are still, as Hitchens says, in "the bawling infancy of our species" and I'm fucking tired of it.
It may be that there have only been 3 INFORMANTS names released.
I have mod points, but I'd rather comment =) This is one of the underlying factors in my studies that very voraciously rears it head. When, in the course of the years, we support the brutish and barbaric dictators in one part of the world, but then claim our righteousness against others, declaring they must be taken down " at all costs" we undermine what little support the world general population already has for us. Look, by now, many of us have come to understand these wars are ridiculous exercises in futility, covered in lies and wrapped in deceit. The question that one must ask when presented with the dilemma of your comment about principle, is that, if we are being selective about which "evil" to destroy, what is the reason for that selectivity? The most obvious of answers are of a matter not having anything to do with principle or ethics or morality, but rather fundamental, although questionable, issues of (inter)national power, influence, resources, and the maintaining of them.
I have actually been analyzing the documents, and thanks to a tip from another /.er, I have found at least 25 names (tip: look in medcap category) So while I have and still am waiting to see some sort of official analysis with hard numbers to come out, I can tell you there are more than 3. I'm a semi-supporter of the leaks (it's complicated), but just thought I'd throw some real info your way.
Simply put, I agree. It doesn't matter that I with my limited time and resources have'nt previously been able to find names (and thanks to the above poster I have found at least 25 using some key search strings) What I am stating is that we need to know hard data, exactly how many names are released? What is their relevance in the context given? I must say I am disappointed that Wikileaks did'nt sanitize it better.
Half-life was my original love when it comes to PC games. That I am still able to say after all these years that I truly trust Valve that whatever the next installment and ones after that will be of superb quality and lots of fun, not to mention with awesome new modding potential. Valve and by extension Steam is a bastion of the pc gamer industry, despite its often pointed out flaws (usually said to be DRM and longevity)
Thanks
You make a good point. Taking a step back and looking at this as objectively as possible, it would seem all guilt of crime lays on the leaker themselves, not the "messenger". Is a citizen of another country bound to US law? I would think not, so then I would have to wonder what kind of mutual "law" his country of citizenship shares with the US, or maybe if there is an international law covering such matters?
Thanks for that, a very informative wiki entry that I'm sure will come in handy! More people should read it!
Because the true crime is at the highest levels (I my tracing of "blame" I consistently end up at the Joint Chiefs, other generals, and primarily the former VP and SoD) and those people still have a lot of power in D.C.
We provide more direct aid to the Taliban than these documents do. We fund Warlords directly, we fund Pakistan, we fund ISI, we fund parts of the Karzai regime (yes it is a regime), we fund Militant Talibs from the haqqani network to Paki Talibs indirectly.And this is now, today, this does not include the massive amounts of funding and training that not just us but the Sauds et al gave to the mujaheddin in the 80's. We are our own worst enemy.
I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."
*nix: The prime example of a love hate relationship in geekdom.
Where in my post does it indicate I have "fallen" for the excuses for war? I certainly haven't, and even the claim of mineral resources is well, irrelevant. There is no oil, but some major pipelines have been proposed and some are built, and continue to have issues. The deposit of minerals is pure PR spin, if it costs us 944 billion dollars (on OEF/OIF since 9/11) and there is 1 trillion worth of minerals, how is that smart?
As a USMC Iraq combat vet, who has for the past few months been studying the Afghan situation extensively, I can say that this is a good thing. Anybody who is actually involved knows that the Paki, and more specifically ISI, have been a problem for us since the early 80's, and not much has changed. The Paki's have and will continue to say "What? Not us!" but they are full of shit. The fact that the politicians are relatively good at hiding this fact undermines the general public's knowledge about the situation, and therefore it is a major part of controlling public opinion about our war. The facts are that we send money to ISI (often bypassing paki authorities completely) who then have (sometimes rogue) officers directly funding everything from afghan warlords, to Al Queda, to Paki Talibs, and on down the line. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan has absolutely no interest in really getting rid of their extremists, on either border, because Islamabad has so much fear of India, the militants are a tool they plan to use if needed. They will only do enough to keep our money flowing to them, but not enough to truly alienate the extremists. Its enormously complicated, with factors such as Iran and Russia playing into the equation. Regardless, I just hope that Assange did a good enough job purging of intel that could jeopardize people, but when so much is being hid, this kind of knowledge should be made public, albeit perhaps a bit with a bit more ambiguous information. But the real interest here is that that at the moment, as do many of the officers and enlisted I have talked to who are active in "Ganny" agree that we should not be there. First, not only does history show us that attempted conquer after attempted conquer, (including Russia, the British, and Rome as the most cited examples) Afghanistan is not a place that has ever been receptive to foreign rule. Second, our objectives are far too abstract. I often hear conflicting statements from politicians, some say we are there to prevent a safe haven for terrorists, but if that is the case, there are more AQ in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, and especially Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan. Not to mention the amount of funding flowing from third parties with interest in AQ and AQ like organizations that we do little about. We even fund the militant talibs with protection money for convoys! Others say we are there to help prevent Pakistan being overrun with terrorists (who we are afraid will attempt to take control of Paki's nukes), but if that is the case, why are we not forcing ISI and Paki to help destroy these enemies? It is because, as I said before, they don't want to! Others say we are there to help restore the people of Afghanistan to a "Representative Government" but I have multiple problems with this. One, the culture is not conductive to such things, there is far too much fighting between Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, Foreign Arabs, et al. If they don't even claim to be Afghan, but rather claim their ethnicity, how can they unite to rule themselves? Sure we could do it for them, but we would be there for another 150+ years. Not something I think we are willing to do. The other question this brings up, is, "Where do you stop in your effort to "liberate" peoples from oppression?" I have been places I might consider worse than Iraq or Afghanistan (usually in Africa). So should we be "liberating" the people of Darfur(in Sudan), Somalia (I thought we learned our lesson there, apparently not with recent events) etc? I have said it before, and I will say it again, tactically, our military is pretty much capable of anything you throw at them. It is strategically that we have failed, and I blame this on a handful of issues. A few of these being, a blatant disrespect for learning histories lessons, the infiltration of the military system with political "control/influence", and the lack of ranks above 0-6 not having the balls to tell truth to power, because once you get stars on, your are no longer military, you are a politician (With a few exc
It is, but nobodies listening.