US Drops MOAB Bomb in Afghanistan

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: intrptr


Still beating that dead horse called Afghanistan...(?)

Afghanistan is just a battlefield for ISIS and other groups to hide.

It seems to me that taking war seriously instead of trying to win "hearts and minds" as the last two administrations have tried and lied us into, is a far better route. It's either that or get out altogether.

Either way is fine by me.

My take is pretty simple. Afghanistan is a run down slum controlled by their corrupt government (landlord). Druggies and criminals use the property as a base for criminal activity. You can kill some of them and more come in. The landlord can't even evict them. So...you either tear down the property and take it from the landlord, replace the landlord with someone who can clean it up...or pretend it doesn't exist which will eventually bite you in the ass.

a reply to: projectvxn

If war is like a splinter, the "hearts and minds" strategy is like the fear of pulling it out. A splinter has only two solutions: pull it out or leave it in. Pulling it out hurts, pretty bad for a second, but leaving it in causes it to fester, pus, and can eventually lead to amputation or blood poisoning.

This splinter has been in long enough. I say get it out, get it out quick, and let things heal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Absolutely spot on.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent analogy! (As long as the "splinter" isn't too big.)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree we need to GTFO, but doing it halfway through a fight isn't really an option. We actually tried that in Iraq under Obama, and that slip alone was enough to create a void that ISIS would wind up filling. Now we have terrorist threats throughout Europe and the US.

Our only viable option at this time is to defeat ISIS, allow a reasonable government to fill the void, get our little hineys out of where they don't belong, and never, ever, under any circumstances, pull such a bonehead maneuver again.

But the first step is win, as quickly and painlessly as possible.

TheRedneck

I think pulling out halfway through is a totally reasonable option. I used to have your opinion, because I felt that once we committed American lives to the cause, it was wrong to pull out and have essentially wasted those lives. Over the past few years though I've changed my opinion. Spending the money and lives that we did was a disaster, but there's no sense in wasting more of both, just to continue to follow through on a mission that we never should have gotten involved in, in the first place.

To many people in these countries we're a hostile invading force. We overthrew their stable governments and brought chaos. Now we're trying to meddle in their politics and kill everyone we don't like. Staying there isn't going to lessen the hatred towards us which ultimately fuels these terrorist groups. Getting out of there and letting a combination of globalization and self determination do it's work would eventually stop them though.

a reply to: Aazadan

We tried that. It's how we got ISIS. They filled the void we left and pulled us back in.

You really want to do that again?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

We tried that. It's how we got ISIS. They filled the void we left and pulled us back in.

You really want to do that again?

ISIS will eventually die out. If we go back in, we're going to be there permanently. At any point, leaving will create another ISIS.

Think about what fuels these people, I've experienced it so I can see it from their perspective pretty easily. My best friend as a kid was from Iraq, as was his family. He loved America, and in the mid 00's was living over in Iraq. He was killed, not by a terrorist but by the US Army. Wrong place, wrong time... just more collateral damage.

Lets flip this scenario around. What if Russia or China invaded the US. They took control of the west coast as their "green zone", were fighting in the midwest, and considered those in the east who hadn't surrendered to be militants. Lets say they set up their own puppet government, with the US government toppled. We both know that there would be a terrorist movement trying to fight the invaders off. That's what we are to them. Would they ever win our hearts and minds as long as they were occupying our territory?

The best weapon we have in this fight is our corporate army. And I don't mean Blackwater, I mean McDonalds. Bringing our products to their nation gives them jobs and income so that they don't have to fight. It raises their standard of living so they have something to live for. And it forges economic ties between nations so that we can get along. That is the best way to put ISIS and everyone else out of business.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, I don't mean set up a government. I mean we have to maintain some amount of peace until the indigenous people can set a government, on their own, and as soon as it is established we leave. If we do not maintain peace during that transition, the strongest will rule, and the strongest are never the peaceful ones.

ISIS will not die out until it is killed. It might mature some, but it will always be a terrorist organization, and they do not only strike within their borders. They strike out at any country that disagrees with them, not just countries that invaded them.

People need to try and understand who these people are. They are religious fanatics. They hate Christians, Jews, gays, women... everyone who does not subscribe to their religion. They do not debate; they kill. They have no fear of death themselves, and place no value on the lives of others.

There will never be a McDonald's in Iraq as long as there are terrorists in Iraq. There will never be decent jobs, decent housing, clean food or water, or any of the things we consider necessary to civilized life. If we could magically transform Iraq into a paradise of economic opportunity overnight, it would be a smoldering ruin by sunset.

Assad is a monster, but compared to ISIS he looks like he's wearing a halo. He unleashed chemicals on a village; ISIS routinely murders non-ISIS inhabitants for being non-ISIS.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
On the whole McDonald's thing...

There's one in Baghdad but even better is their knock-off, MaDonal in Iraqi Kurdistan. According to that entry the owner applied for a McDonald's but they turned him down, but there's no reference to check if that's true.

That MaDonal page is sort of cool. They provide free food to US soldiers.

To be a bit more on topic, everybody was freaking out when this event happened and once again it was just another day. I hope we can end our wars in the next few years without starting any new ones. It would be nice to see at least one day of peacetime in my life but I doubt that will happen. We've been at war almost the entire time we've been a country...

originally posted by: Noncents
a reply to: TheRedneck
On the whole McDonald's thing...

There's one in Baghdad but even better is their knock-off, MaDonal in Iraqi Kurdistan. According to that entry the owner applied for a McDonald's but they turned him down, but there's no reference to check if that's true.

That MaDonal page is sort of cool. They provide free food to US soldiers.

To be a bit more on topic, everybody was freaking out when this event happened and once again it was just another day. I hope we can end our wars in the next few years without starting any new ones. It would be nice to see at least one day of peacetime in my life but I doubt that will happen. We've been at war almost the entire time we've been a country...

Perpetual war...........

a reply to: TheRedneck

They need more than a government though. Look at Iraq, we stayed and let them set up a government (granted, we had some say in it). Then we let them form a military. Then we trained and supplied that military. And then we pulled out at their request.

They still couldn't handle their own defense. If we want them to be stable, it's going to take a lot more than a couple of years. Germany and Japan are successful because of long term commitments. Iraq, or any other middle eastern nation we want to do the same to is going to require a similarly long commitment. In the case of Germany and Japan such measures were necessary. I just don't see the same motivation with Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore the best thing we can do is to pull out and try to fix things in other ways.

Fixing the problem is a lot easier said than done..who here want's to send their boy there..and how many are going to be needed?, you can't bomb the problem away, half measures are not going to work.
How many boots on the ground are going to be needed..100,000?

originally posted by: vonclod
Fixing the problem is a lot easier said than done..who here want's to send their boy there..and how many are going to be needed?, you can't bomb the problem away, half measures are not going to work.
How many boots on the ground are going to be needed..100,000?

The estimate I heard on one of the radio shows (Hannity, I think it was), was 350,000 troops for 20 years.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's exactly my point. We pulled out too soon. Not only that, but we publicly set a date for when we would pull out.

That's like living in a rough neighborhood with a gun and posting a billboard saying "My home will be vacant from July 3-10th." You won't have many problems until July 3rd, but then you're going to lose everything you have. People are just not that stoopid!

Yes, it might take 20 years, but that's not 20 years of war. It's a few years of heavy military presence, slowly winding down to a minor military presence, followed by years of additional training, followed by more years of military readiness, followed finally by more years of advisory assistance. All without openly publicizing where we are in the process.

The hearts and minds issue is resolved that way as well. The present generation believes as they believe. We cannot change views cemented over years of bad experiences by making a few goodwill gestures over a few months. We have to prove to the next generation that, despite what we did before, we have changed. That takes time. Period. But if done, the next generation will be more open to accepting us as a neighbor and less fanatical about killing us. They might still not like us, but as long as we only exert the necessary force to stabilize the government, without trying to define the government, they will at least tolerate us.

It's either that, withdraw completely and fight ISIS in our own cities, or keep playing around and looking like an inept busy body that wants to tell everyone else what to do for eternity. There are no other options.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It is however 20 years of overseas deployment which is expensive. I just don't see the benefit. If it were a conventional war, and those overseas troops were confining the battlefield to that area, that's one thing. This is a terror organization though, they're not interested in conventional war. There is no front line. All they have to do, is have some decentralized terrorist cells distributed globally and the mere threat that a group of 4 people might be in the US and might be planning something forces us to spend trillions on domestic security, whether or not they actually have a group here. It completely circumvents the troops we keep in the middle east.

a reply to: lostbook

does this have anything to do with the "Moabites?"

originally posted by: oprccola
a reply to: lostbook

does this have anything to do with the "Moabites?"

I think a Moabite is sort of like a smithereen, in this case.

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for that, it's been a while since I've been on ATS so I apologise for the late reply.

I agree, bad boy Trump is making the political moves. The man can dance but I'm left wondering how many strings are behind the scene.

I suspect many...

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I can't help but thinking about trying to collapse Swiss cheese with a vacuum cleaner.

I'm not saying the bomb didn't have the desired effect nor will I claim to have any advanced knowledge of physics and the three principles of fire.

Better ways existed though, I'm fairly sure of that.
a reply to: TheScale

Honestly?

I'd have had the Afghanis handle it with their special forces backed up with Intel and possibly logistical support. With that approach they may lose lives but they'll also acquire a tunnel complex to do with as they please.

It's a lot easier to make something unusable when you have time and at the end of the day ISIS having a foothold in Afghanistan and Pakistan is their own problem to deal with.

I hate to say it but sometimes the USA is a bunch of pussies... You wouldn't dare pull such a move in Iran, Pakistan or North Korea. You do what you can get away with. Brazen is too polite tbh. I'll save that word for your little (stronger) brother called Israel.

They do things because they can, not because they'll get away with it.