What does this guy think of “strategic” bombing?
A senior British commander in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province said he had asked the U.S. military to withdraw its special forces from his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they have caused was making it difficult to win over local people.
A U.S. military spokesman denied the request was ever made…
After 18 months of heavy fighting, British commanders say they are finally making headway in securing key areas, like this town, and are now in the difficult position of trying to win back the support among people whose lives have been devastated by aerial bombing.
American “strategy” seems to be – we’re not winning anything on the ground; so, let’s just bomb the place and claim a victory.
thank you
If they can’t live in peace, they can’t live. I have no problem with that as our foreign policy: It’s simpler to enforce than what we’ve been trying.
Hey, fuck the bombing, let’s just declare victory and go home.
Since when has documentation or proof been part of Dumbya’s Royal Strategy?
Leave the little kids alone, and until we can mount a war against something worth fighting against WITH A “COMMANDER IN CHIEF” WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK HE’S DOING, let’s just secure the borders and hunker down.
#3 – You’re pretty angry there. I thought the Democratic Congress was going to solve this issue for you.
Guess you were wrong there, too.
Looks to me that these idiots learned nothing from Vietnam, bombing over and over and Over and OVER was a waste of time, effort and resources.
Sounds like a good strategy.
#5, Bombing is definitely not a ‘waste of time, effort and resources’.
When al-Usa does it, that continues their support of their bombing industry, which makes bombs as well as creates the fantasies that insure that their citizens will remain paralyzed by fear and therefore more easily controlled.
When someone bombs al-Usa, that further increases the fear in al-Usa’s citizens, therefore precipitating their anger as well as their relentless desire for vengeance, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
As long as al-Usa continues to pay homage to the Bitch Goddess of War,
this destructive as well as self-destructive cycle will continue.
Or to rephrase James Hill’s philosophy,
only al-Usa decides who lives and who dies, world without end (so far) amen.
Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®
“American “strategy” seems to be – we’re not winning anything on the ground; so, let’s just bomb the place and claim a victory.”
Ya, thats exactly it, Dvorak…. :/
I vote for the bombs. the bombs did a good job – in fact, the bombs are the only parts of this whole story that dont suck.
Bombs r kooL
Who in the hell are they? Britain is getting dangerously close to being in the axis of evil.
Bring them on.. They better watch their back too. Ya talk’n ta me?
You make the most errors when you get desperate. I imagine the Pentagon is being squeezed for results. This is a failure of leadership, starting foremost with the POTUS.
We The People, of The “Republic” of China, are very happy with the distraction Iraq has provided Us. Not only have We shot multiple holes through your economy, We have also eroded your ability to manufacture machinery and equipment. At the same time, We’ve grown Our populace, grown Our military, and overall surpassed the Disjointed States of Amerika as a world power.
Oh, you have an “information-based/services-based economy”? Great — We are willing to read about Our triumph over you in your own newspapers, We will concede your victory on that one item. However, when We take over India immediately after you, then We will own the information services you’ve outsourced for the past 6 years.
Leaving you with… nothing.
We will try to continue sending toilet paper. Or not.
failure
Just as I thought, WMD was just a smokescreen. Liberals are opposed to any war being led by a Republican President.
#14,
You misunderstand liberals. Liberals area opposed to any war. You didn’t have to qualify it. There is an inherent quality to war, where it is waged by governments on people. As a liberal I view government as a tool to enable people to lead their lives, not as an authoritarian entity used to oppress those who disagree with me as conservatives do.
The closest I have seen a war waged on another government instead of people was the Kosovo Campaign. Even then only the specific elements of that campaign where the air force called the government building they were going to bomb before they bombed them. I though bombing the infrastructure used to oppress the Kosovars, rather than the people, was a briliant use of military might.
At the same time, as a Liberal, I accept the need for national defense. I initially supported the Afghan campaign. I would probably still support it if it was not for the other follies and foilbles of this administration.
Also, I can’t help but think that if the goal of the Afghan campaign was to liberate the Afghan people from the Conservatives er I mean Taliban, and hadn’t immediately become a cynical ploy to build a pipline to the Caspian sea, it might have had more success.
While at first my hatred of George Bush might have been judgemental, he has certainly earned my hatred in the 6.5 years since.
It has nothing to do with that (R) behind his name when they show him on TV. I like what the Republicans stand for in their literature if not their actions. It is just I judge people based on their deeds, not their words.
I’m taking a different approach to this than Blame Bush.
I think much of the problem originates with the mid-level and senior ground command levels. They are so afraid of casualties they will use the least dangerous (to Americans troops) approach. This includes drone aircraft to scout the area, F-16s firing missiles into the area or dropping bombs from high altitude, long range tank or artillery fire, etc. They won’t use actual American bodies to get close and personal.
The Military – Industrial complex has given them all these tools that will save American lives so they feel they must use them. The problem becomes that from a distance it becomes very hard to tell the difference between a goat herder and a Taliban gun runner or a wedding and a insurgent training camp. So while we save American lives, it is at the cost of civilians.
I know the Right Wing Nut Evangelical Conservative Republican Radiohead Talkshow crowd will start screaming I don’t support the troops. I don’t support the methods of achieving your goals with the lives of the people you are supposed to be saving.
As the U.S. learned in their successful war against the people of Viet Nam, the best way to win their hearts and minds and their support is to bomb the hell out of them.
This worked so well in Viet Nam, I’m surprised the U.S. isn’t doing more of it in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
#16 – You’re not important enough to scream at son, you’re just here to be mocked.
To Mr.Fusion:
As someone who is currently in the enlistment process (Army) I can on some levels agree with the least Casualty approach.
One: The American public opinion still matters despite what people are lead to believe.
Two. Our current standing army is only 500,000 strong we cannot sustain many casualties. Unless you favor the draft. And we all know how well that goes.
#16 – Until you start wowing us over with your keen tactical insight and planning, James’ comment seems right on.
#19 – What specialty are you looking at for the Army, cgriff?
#19,
Yes I favor the draft. The first two to be drafted would have to include the chicken hawks like we have in #18 and #20.
GregA, the support of the Kosovo War is mainly why I say it is a partisan issue. While many Democrats opposed it at the time, the level of opposition is completely different. That war was also not authorized by the UN, was opposed by Russia in their backyard, etc. Plus the US is still there 8 years later.
#21 – See how I own you? You must see it at this point.