Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is this unpatriotic?
10 Answers
There are persistent calls to better equip our troops (no general has ever gone to war with everything he needed) but heres the crux of the matter.
Our enemy is armed with aging Kalashnikovs, improvised explosive devices, a yashmak and a pair of sandals, and they seem to manage.
Maybe the problem would be better solved by better deployment, better tactics and an identifiable acceptible political solution.
Our enemy is armed with aging Kalashnikovs, improvised explosive devices, a yashmak and a pair of sandals, and they seem to manage.
Maybe the problem would be better solved by better deployment, better tactics and an identifiable acceptible political solution.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The only way for a formal army to win a guerilla war is a total burnt earth policy, execution of civilians suspected of harbouring the enemy, internment and the like.
Kind of self defeating bearing in mind the reasons we're supposed to be in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Regarding the Kalashnikov, the best gun on the day is the one that works and a Kalashnikov can be fired by almost anybody and will still work if you fill the working bits full of mud. Don't write it off.
Kind of self defeating bearing in mind the reasons we're supposed to be in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Regarding the Kalashnikov, the best gun on the day is the one that works and a Kalashnikov can be fired by almost anybody and will still work if you fill the working bits full of mud. Don't write it off.
What rules?
We're not at war with Pakistan, yet we strafe it with drones reguarly.
At least during the Vietnam war people were savvy enough to know just where Ho Chi Minh trail mostly was (Laos).
They dress like the ordinary members of the public, not a bit like the Maquis or Kubis and Gabcik amongst others.
I disagree that a scorched earth policy will defeat them, just as much as I don't fall for the politicking of an Afghan army defending the government, the soldiers need an idea a vision of what the Afghanistan will look like.
That will take time, that does mean conflict, at the moment our tactic seems to engage the enemy wherever we can find them on patrol.
It's a poor tactic, ask Westmoreland, when they don't fancy it they won't bother, and when they do, we take the position and then leave a week later they're back again and we're all fighting for the same position again.
Afghanistan is a narco economy, replace the drugs with corn by paying more for it, this will take time, but it will reduce their efficency.
The reality is, our troops our better fed, equipped and rested than our foe.
We defeated a gurilla army in Malaya without recourse to scorched earth.
The commanders seem fixated on winning battles, that doesn't mean we'll win the war (ask Westmoreland) the enemy is choosing when to engage in battle and where to wrest this control off them requires a political solution on the ground.
We're not at war with Pakistan, yet we strafe it with drones reguarly.
At least during the Vietnam war people were savvy enough to know just where Ho Chi Minh trail mostly was (Laos).
They dress like the ordinary members of the public, not a bit like the Maquis or Kubis and Gabcik amongst others.
I disagree that a scorched earth policy will defeat them, just as much as I don't fall for the politicking of an Afghan army defending the government, the soldiers need an idea a vision of what the Afghanistan will look like.
That will take time, that does mean conflict, at the moment our tactic seems to engage the enemy wherever we can find them on patrol.
It's a poor tactic, ask Westmoreland, when they don't fancy it they won't bother, and when they do, we take the position and then leave a week later they're back again and we're all fighting for the same position again.
Afghanistan is a narco economy, replace the drugs with corn by paying more for it, this will take time, but it will reduce their efficency.
The reality is, our troops our better fed, equipped and rested than our foe.
We defeated a gurilla army in Malaya without recourse to scorched earth.
The commanders seem fixated on winning battles, that doesn't mean we'll win the war (ask Westmoreland) the enemy is choosing when to engage in battle and where to wrest this control off them requires a political solution on the ground.
Everton,
I wasn't suggesting what we should do just pointing out the unwinnable nature of the war. Look at Vietnam (Not only the US but the French before them), Korea, Somalia etc. etc. I'm not an expert on the Malayan war but I believe this was less a real war than the putting down of a relatively small group of insurgents. Root of the problem is you can't fight an enemy that just melts away into the general poulation.
I don't have an answer but I would venture to say the solution is more about politics and getting more of the native population on side and so on.
It is worth keeping in mind that no matter what our motivation is or who holds the moral highground, we are still an invading army.
I wasn't suggesting what we should do just pointing out the unwinnable nature of the war. Look at Vietnam (Not only the US but the French before them), Korea, Somalia etc. etc. I'm not an expert on the Malayan war but I believe this was less a real war than the putting down of a relatively small group of insurgents. Root of the problem is you can't fight an enemy that just melts away into the general poulation.
I don't have an answer but I would venture to say the solution is more about politics and getting more of the native population on side and so on.
It is worth keeping in mind that no matter what our motivation is or who holds the moral highground, we are still an invading army.
Yes Rev I agree, I'm sorry if you thought I was suggesting you wanted a scorched earth policy.
Malaya was a full on scrap, we went in on the premise we were leaving, the principle difference was that we had a clear exit strategy based on the founding of a sovreign state and the form it would take.
This is less clear in Afghanistan, Karzai has to pay homage to the warlords to maintain order, he's like a cross between Chang Kai Chek and Franco (powerless without militias and a leader without a movement) revolutions start from below, it's the ordinary people who need to be empowered for the war to rightfully won.
As it stands it appears to me to be that we are now in a position to invade Iran as we have vassel states on two borders, I genuinely hope I'm wrong about that.
Malaya was a full on scrap, we went in on the premise we were leaving, the principle difference was that we had a clear exit strategy based on the founding of a sovreign state and the form it would take.
This is less clear in Afghanistan, Karzai has to pay homage to the warlords to maintain order, he's like a cross between Chang Kai Chek and Franco (powerless without militias and a leader without a movement) revolutions start from below, it's the ordinary people who need to be empowered for the war to rightfully won.
As it stands it appears to me to be that we are now in a position to invade Iran as we have vassel states on two borders, I genuinely hope I'm wrong about that.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Editor's Blog16 mins ago
Society & Culture19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
