19 Things Generals Can't Say In Public About The Afghan War

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by TrapperFrank

I was there in '04, worked in Ghazni, Kandahar and Tarin Kowt. Those 19 statements applied then. Nothing has changed.

And some of us worked with the Afgans in the 1980's and if our reports were read then you'd see all 19 statements included and more....... We do not learn from history...

Next time the islamic terrorists hit us I say we just send bombers and drones, no boots on the ground.

[Trapper John]

The comparisons to VN are astounding at the strategic level. As many have already said, we never seem to learn from history and keep pursuing the same strategies with the expectation of different outcomes - NUTS!

But maybe we are looking at this the wrong way? Disregard all the rhetoric about nation building, COIN, winning the war, advancing democracy, liberty for all,rah rah rah. What if the strategy is working and the outcomes, predictable and obvious by now to even the dullest of tools, what if these are, in fact, the desired outcomes?

After all, the amount of debt incurred to prosecute these wars has been huge. Makes me wonder.

[Fat Albert]

Trapper John,

Do you actually think that the outcome in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is the desired end product? Is this the result of the "military industrial complex"or "chrony capitalism" feeding itself?

I think that politicians have a different yardstick they live by. For them to throw thousands of solders' lives away for the same outcome is sick and or criminal. If the outcome that we are getting is the same then the fault lays at the feet of the appointed generals and elected politicians. The emphasis is on "appointed and elected". Being appointed doesn't insure the general is technically proficient just political acceptable to whatever administration in power. An election is a beauty contest for lying scumbags. When you mix the two, any decisions they make together will assuredly be flawed over and over again.

Have you ever noticed when a war starts there's a purge of senior generals. These are the politically appointees who are incompetent and incapable of doing what their office requires. At the end of the war, politician again promotes/appoint politically desirable officers as a payback and the circular firing squad continues.

In the 1980's, I remember the process of appointing a new AG here. I knew all of the contenders well enough to know who were competent and who were not. The democrat governor appointed the only democrat and least militarily competent. The remaining contender were later forced to retire. I've been bitter toward the process of appointed officers since then.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Fat Albert

Trapper John,

Do you actually think that the outcome in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is the desired end product? Is this the result of the "military industrial complex"or "chrony capitalism" feeding itself?

I think that politicians have a different yardstick they live by. For them to throw thousands of solders' lives away for the same outcome is sick and or criminal. If the outcome that we are getting is the same then the fault lays at the feet of the appointed generals and elected politicians. The emphasis is on "appointed and elected". Being appointed doesn't insure the general is technically proficient just political acceptable to whatever administration in power. An election is a beauty contest for lying scumbags. When you mix the two, any decisions they make together will assuredly be flawed over and over again.

Have you ever noticed when a war starts there's a purge of senior generals. These are the politically appointees who are incompetent and incapable of doing what their office requires. At the end of the war, politician again promotes/appoint politically desirable officers as a payback and the circular firing squad continues.

In the 1980's, I remember the process of appointing a new AG here. I knew all of the contenders well enough to know who were competent and who were not. The democrat governor appointed the only democrat and least militarily competent. The remaining contender were later forced to retire. I've been bitter toward the process of appointed officers since then.

Your thinking too narrowly. Think of the outcome in terms of economic cost - increasing national debt, or in terms of the societal effect - division and polarization. These are the much broader effects of policy. Maybe these are the desired outcomes?

Follow the money.