and from that i read if we had left saddam in power he had the situation under better control.
and the death toll is on the same scale as all the current attacks ?
Last edited:
Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter
- Thread starter fadetoblack
- Start date
and from that i read if we had left saddam in power he had the situation under better control.
and the death toll is on the same scale as all the current attacks ?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
If you look at the history of the region, the Russians failed defeat the Mujahideen (who were given funding and weapons by the US, oh the irony), so you can see that Saddam's unbelievable brutality, and cunning when handling militants, was what kept him in power. Any sign of weakness and they'd have overthrown him very quickly.
As to whether it was better to leave him, or in the long term to have deposed him, well... I'm still not sure.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
Look at the very long term picture though, 50 years+, it might be better than a series of despots. It is hard to say without being able to see parallel realities I know, and perhaps the region would have resolved itself "naturally".
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
Yeah, it is hard to say, we have to hope that some level of peace can come from negotiations and agreements like in Ireland (Catholic, Protestant). There is no long term solution that involves force that has ever worked to overcome sectarian violence
just been reading a bit about the after effects of the war.
nearly half of the countries children have become orphans, thats over 5 million kids.
60-70% of children are suffering from psychological problems.
that was from wiki ^^
but surely it cant be right.....
Last edited:
IMO if you grab them by the short and curlies their hearts and minds will follow....
On a more serious note. I;d be quite happy to hear of a few nights where various taliban or men of fighting age and owners of AKs were found with the head mounted creatively on the chest of the body... Might slow down the terrorists and make them wonder about things that go bump in the night
If it's quicker and more practical for the head to be brought back and lets face it a head is a lot more portable than a body. Then where is the issue especially if it means our troops are safer
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
wait. didnt we help the jews to get israel back? and now they are fighting over land divides? but we do virtually nothing to help the situation. this is an indication that we are a 'firte and forget;' kind of nation. we do something, make a promise - 50 years layter, sod them and leave them to it?
who is to say it wont be the saqme in iraq, especially as i alluded to the oil contracts going elsewhere much to the chargrin of the US and UK invaders one they get bored say in 2 years, or 5 years... or however long it takes.
long term the iraqi government is not going to achieve a peace between 2-3 factions. its simply going to snuff out the most trouble some of the factions or is itself going to be built upon one of the sides beliefs to the detriment of another.
iraq's stability was built upon saddams regime and its ability to dispense grim repercussions for any kind of violence from one of the groups in iraq. we dont do that and you cannot rely upon the iraqi government to do that either in a fair way.. hence the problem will most likely not be solved. just swept away under the carpet...
Castiel is right - you can't drop to their level.
War is war it serves no purpose other than to kill. However to change an idea/culture means you need to remain true to your ideas so they can see the good points too.
I think it was a US president that said - there are no enemies only friends you don't know yet. Which refers to the fact that the majority of ill will is down to misunderstanding and propaganda.
Unfortunately the computer gaming generation see the conflict as a game where the adrenalin fuelled perspective is to kill the opposition to win. The games don't offer the winning over of hearts and minds which is the long term piece.
War is war it serves no purpose other than to kill. However to change an idea/culture means you need to remain true to your ideas so they can see the good points too.
I think it was a US president that said - there are no enemies only friends you don't know yet. Which refers to the fact that the majority of ill will is down to misunderstanding and propaganda.
Unfortunately the computer gaming generation see the conflict as a game where the adrenalin fuelled perspective is to kill the opposition to win. The games don't offer the winning over of hearts and minds which is the long term piece.
Last edited:
There are far too many keyboard warriors in here making comments about a situation they do not have the slightest understanding of.
I think some of you should join up and gain some real experience of the subject and all of it's horrors enabling you to gain some objective/subjective balance.
I think some of you should join up and gain some real experience of the subject and all of it's horrors enabling you to gain some objective/subjective balance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
That seldom works. In war, in life etc.IMO if you grab them by the short and curlies their hearts and minds will follow....
What?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
Absolutely agree with meghatronic, as I stated earlier, there is only one insurgency that has potentially been defeated by force alone - the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
Usually a combination of force and diplomacy has been the long-term solution, and that's what we're starting to see now. Look at Ireland for a recent example.
The Tamil Tigers were a separatist movement not an Insurgency, the main criticism of the tactics used in defeating the Tamils include Summary Execution of political opponents, Torture, Mutilation, forced expulsion of large sections of the Tamil community, Allegations from the survivors of The Mullaitivu "no-fire" zone, who say that Govt forces bombed them after the declaration of the "no fire" zone causing the death of over 20,000 Tamil civilians and allegations of genocide.
It is allegations and actions like the ones above that validate the conditions set in the GC and International Law, and the reason why we follow them despite the fact that the opponent does not always abide by the same moral and legal codes.
Sri Lanka is subject to War-Crime investigations by the UN, and has been criticised by the UN and other groups for a failure to investigate the allegations made against them. (Gen Fonseka's conviction on corruption charges notwithstanding.)
You only need to look at the Bosnian War to see what happens when opposing Forces do not abide by RofE or the GC and resort to Total War.
Do those of you, namely Amnesia and Nickg think that allowing the same or similar tactics to be used in theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan would help the situation at all?
I can assure you that it would not, all it would accomplish is a breakdown of what law and order there is, which in turn would lead to massive loss of live among the civilian popualtions, enforced diaspora's of minorty populations, genocide of civilian groups, widespread ethnic cleansing and lawlessness.
Both the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are two fold, first was the removal of a brutal regime which was a threat to it's own civilian population and international security (be it military or economic), in both cases this aspect of the operation was accomplished successfully. The second and far more difficult part of the mission parameter is to restore order and a rule of law until a democratic government is in place and capable to assume responsibility of it's own security. In Iraq this is finally coming to fruition, although there is a long way to go because of the external insurgencies which blight the region.
Afghanistan is different because the external insurgency is supporting an internal militia and you have the added problem that the Pashtun peoples are widespread throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and other neighbouring countries so that added to the terrain adds to the difficulties politically and militarily in engaging the enemy effectively.
The main weapon in combatting these difficulties is winning the support of the Pashtun people, this cannot be done if we engage using the tactics of terror and total war, they will simply see us as invaders and foreign occupiers instead of people who are attempting to restore a free and lawful society. We must lead by example and not lose the war simply to win the battle.
I find it curious that those who argue that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan then complain when we do not use military force against Somalia and Zimbabwee which would have similar (probably worse considering Rwanda and Congo) consequences. Make your mind up, do we or not.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
All of the sources I've been reading refer to it as a separatist insurgency, and it meets the definition as "a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority".
And I agree on your other points, evidence suggests the government were brutal, and furthermore subsequent events with the countries leaders arresting military figures who dared stray into politics (Gen. Fonseka). Smells like they feel threatened, much like Stalin started eliminating his allies who he felt threatened by, after his enemies were gone.
Agreed, you can't force peace into people's hearts and minds, but you can't wear kid gloves without being trampled all over.
The retrospectoscope is a wonderful thing, intervention worked well in Sierra Leone but that didn't involve radical religion. And I would say that intervening on the behalf of a population without ever truly knowing whether you are doing what they want in the short, or long term, is a difficult question and I'm not sure we can make a generalised "intervene/do not intervene" policy.
Difficult question though, do we do it for our own benefit (i.e. "projecting power" abroad to protect ourselves locally), or for the benefit of the citizens of that country (i.e. purely a moralistic intervention).
No easy answer, as far as I can see.
The Tamil's were a recognised belligerent rebellion and as such are not technically insurgents. Although since the rise of Jihadi Islamism the term gets bandied about to apply to anyone. The title when refered to the Tamil's began use when the Sri Lankan Govt tried to de-legitimise the Tamil's in the eyes of the Indian and respective other countries who tacitly supported and recognised the Tamil Tigers as a rebel freedom fighter separatist movement. Either way the definition of the term Insurgency is not well enough defined to make an argument out of, so I will accede the point.
There is also the case that they may be attempting to move the blame onto individuals instead of the Government with regard to war-crime allegations, especially in light of increased pressure from the UN to begin investigations into the allegations.
No-one is wearing Kid Gloves, if we were then Allied loses would be far greater than they currently are. Take the Vietnam War, although different in many ways, the tactics used by the Americans were questionable to say the least, in the 10 years of combat operations in Vietnam 58,159 dead US servicemen, in the 10 years of Afghanistan and Iraqi combat operations the total is 5904. Better medical facilities and technology is responsible for some of the improvement and the obvious differences in terrain and objectives also, but the use of better RofE and the enforcement ofthe GC cannot be ignored in the comparision. If you take the wounded and missing into consideration as well the figures give a similar differential.
It is not an either/or answer. We went to Iraq for both reasons, for own own benefit as well as the benefit of those in the region. Afghanistan is similar although the threat was different.
The objective is ultimately the same. Stable Countries do not generally threaten their neighbours or the security of global economies, and that stability is what we are attempting to encourage in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately there are radical groups who for whatever reason thrive on the instability and will try to preserve that at all costs, hence the escalation of violence in both regions after the fall of the regime.
And no there is never an easy answer.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 663
I didn't meant to imply that we were wearing kid gloves, I was just stating that it seems a combination of talks and force have greater success than just talking, or just force.
Also the minimisation of civilian casualties has to be a priority, I'd agree.
From your personal point of view where do you see the balance of responsibility being? Primarily towards protecting your soldiers, at the higher risk of casualties in the populace, or primarily towards the populace but increased risk to your soldiers? I realise there is a balance to be made, and the McChrystal approach seemed to be pushing towards risk minimisation to civilians.
It would seem intuitive that having the local populace 'on side' would be of great benefit, but I suppose you risk your own troops morale too?