Restrepo

[airdvr 210]

http://restrepothemovie.com/

Caught this documentary last night. Netflix has it streaming. I'm beginning to think we need to let whatever assholes want Afghanistan have it.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,108]

>I'm beginning to think we need to let whatever assholes want
>Afghanistan have it.

Agreed 100%. Let them kill each other without interference from us. (Or let them live in peace; their choice.)

[quade 4]

Quote

Caught this documentary last night.

Great documentary. I wish it had gotten more press in the run up to the Oscars. I thought it deserved to win.

The only bad thing about it is knowing these guys went through hell to establish the outpost, try to gain acceptance in the valley and ultimately it was for nothing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Quote

I'm beginning to think we need to let whatever assholes want Afghanistan have it.

Bad move. If we don't push back, the Taliban will immediately return to what they were doing before 9/11 - using the money from the drug trade to fund terrorism around the world.

If there were ever a case for the decriminalization (but NOT legalization) of hard drugs (opium, hash, morphine...and 90% of the world's heroin supply comes from this area), it can and should be made here. I do not believe legalization is a good idea, but recently I was on a flight from Addis Ababa to elsewhere in Africa with a German engineer who had just come from Afghanistan. He made a convincing case for de-criminalization (but NOT legalization) of the hard stuff as the best means of fighting both addiction AND terrorism at the same time. The status quo is slow to change, however. It's a pity our leadership can't be more flexible. We should not be enablers, but we should find the means to help those who've fallen, not punish them for it. I guess it's easier and cheaper for governments to do the opposite.

Folk wisdom holds that Afghanistan, the so-called "Graveyard of Empires" (TM) has "never been conquered", but that's only because there has never been anything there worth conquering, and most armies (with the exception of the Soviets) were generally in Afghanistan because they were on their way to or from somewhere else (e.g., Alexander and India via the Hindu Kush). There were Greek outposts in the area, but only as waypoints.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Kennedy 0]

I sat in on a webinar from the National War College on this very topic. No one doubts we can win in Afghanistan, but folks are asking why we should bother winning. (no I'm not military or even contracted to the Feds, but contrary to popular belief you don't have to be to learn at/from the NWC)

People forget that the only lasting power in a place like that starts from the ground up. Family. Village. Valley. Tribe. Nation. And most of them never make it past "valley" in terms of giving a shit. If you can't claim the loyalty at each level, you can't claim any at all. Dotsun and Massoud managed To hold people together over larger areas, but they had the common enemy of the Taliban. Massoud was assassinated, and then we had 9/11.

Then throw in that the corrupt little shit running Pakistan was responsible for sending troops weapons and aid to the Taliban, and you can see why that particular "ally" is about as trustworthy fighting the insurgency as an alcoholic tending bar. The USA leaving would precipitate an almost immediate reinstatement of the Pakistani puppet Taliban emirate, and all that entails.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Folk wisdom holds that Afghanistan, the so-called "Graveyard of Empires" (TM) has "never been conquered", but that's only because there has never been anything there worth conquering...

I think you underestimate the power and tenacity of indigenous people that have nothing to lose by martyring themselves coupled with geographical advantages.

The US is incredibly good at bombing the crap out of people from the air. No question. However, once on the ground the collateral damage incurred by all that bombing has a price in turning the indigenous people against the US. Without the cooperation of the "civilian" population, the resistance movement is free to act at will against the occupying forces. Unless the leadership of the occupying forces are willing to commit genocide, the indigenous people always have the advantage of time in their war of attrition against the them.

This was true in France, Vietnam, Afghanistan against the Soviets and it still holds true in Afghanistan today.

If any country attempted to occupy the US, it would be no different. We would continue an armed resistance until the occupying country ran out of funds and the will to continue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Quade,

You also overestimate the success rate of revolutions / insurgencies - history shows that they rarely succeed. Heck, the American Revolution was a total fluke - it had almost NO chance, and came very close to failure more than once. The Americans were very, very lucky. That seldom happens.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[quade 4]

Quote

Quade,

You also overestimate the success rate of revolutions / insurgencies - history shows that they rarely succeed. Heck, the American Revolution was a total fluke - it had almost NO chance, and came very close to failure more than once. The Americans were very, very lucky. That seldom happens.

The American Revolution succeeded where other internal revolutions have failed in large part because it took place on "foreign" soil with respect to the ruling country. It costs any occupying country dearly to maintain the fight, whereas the indigenous people need merely survive until the occupying country runs out of gold and will. This is not much different than India's ability to break free of British rule. The fact is the country being occupied has the advantage as long as genocide is going to be left out of the equation.

Spain successfully took over much of the south, central and western north America not simply because they had superior weaponry, but also because genocide was on the table and the unintentional biological warfare of their forces bringing disease with them. The conquistadors were almost hopelessly outnumbers even with their weapon advantages, but european diseases such as smallpox laid waste to entire civilizations that had absolutely no immunity to it whatsoever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Tink1717 2]

I thought I had a clue as to what was going on over there. After Restrepo, I now unbderstand that I don't even have a remote clue as to what's going on over there.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I thought I had a clue as to what was going on over there. After Restrepo, I now unbderstand that I don't even have a remote clue as to what's going on over there.

Unfortunately I think many of those in positions of authority may have the same problem.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[winsor 236]

Quote

I thought I had a clue as to what was going on over there. After Restrepo, I now unbderstand that I don't even have a remote clue as to what's going on over there.

If you had read Kipling and Michael Herr's "Dispatches," there would be no surprises.

"Charlie Wilson's War" also gave a pretty good indicator of how things would shape up. The comment that we had it won, then fucked up the end game, applies as well now as it did then.

We Americans cling to the principle that "two weeks in the lab can save you an afternoon in the library." Doing your homework is for wimps, I guess.


BSBD,

Winsor