I'm interested in something that HAS worked. So far no one can provide that to me. So why not minimize our servicemen's lives and fight the sporadic fight? I know it's not ideal but you can't argue that it doesn't serve as some type of deterrent.
Actually that's my point....why try to win over the hearts and minds? That lesson should've been driven home in Vietnam.
I don't see that at all. The Soviet Union tried to do exactly what we are currently doing; bring in a large army which generates more insurgents which requires a larger army which generates more insurgents ad infinitum. The Soviet Union also tried to prop up a central regime with no real power outside Kabul, just like the USA.
We didn't try to win hearts and minds (except in the most shallow way) or engage in nation building in Vietnam. We dropped more ordinance on North Vietnam than the Allies dropped during all of the World War II. The policy you are advocating, blast them to hell then withdraw, was tried in Vietnam, although not countrywide. The general policy was to go out clear out a zone of the enemy and then withdraw. That didn't work because the NVA and Vietcong were dug in well enough that they were hard to get and also because it embittered the locals. At the sametime considering 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam I wouldn't say it reduced our casualties while we still ended up losing.
I meant in terms of using overwhelming military force to try to wipe out the Mujahadeen. Also though as you note even with the large army the Soviet strategy was similar to the US Vietnam strategy, go out and try to wipe out the enemy in a zone and then retreat back to base rather than try to hold territory. Gen. McChrystal's strategy that he wants to implement is to actually hold territory. Anyway to Rumplemintz's point. Just using overwhelming force and then retreating isn't going to work. The Soviets used much more force and were more brutal that we have been so ratcheting up the brutality isn't going to work.
He certanly can't do that with the 40,000 troops that they've asked for, unless he wants the Army to hold territory with one man per village. The McCrystal report talks about 500,000 troops in Afghanistan. Thats an increase of nearly an order of magnitude. That will piss of a whole lot of people. That having been said, I just heard Petraeus (who is McChrystal's boss) on CSPAN talking about how we were going to give tribal leaders radios so they could call a rapid response unit when the Taliban comes around. It didn't exactly sound like "holding ground" in the traditional sense.
Originally Posted by rocketsjudoka And then what? Repeat later? Also FYI the Soviets tried that strategy. . Do you actually think we can win over the population against their cousins in the Taliban? On what basis? Because we are just the good guys as we are Americans? We are white Western Christians. Sorry, but thanks to Bush it is seen there as a Christian war. If a $25 million dollar reward can't get them to turn in Osama, how do you think we can win them over with some food, schools or whatever. This smacks so much of the "white man's burden" to civilize the natives of the 18th century British imperialism.
I'm sure Britain's army felt the same way 200+ years ago . The math is very simple. $5 IED takes out 3 well trained soldiers with $100,000 of training... which is why no sane army will purposely choose guerrilla warfare, especially considering you can use unmanned drones instead.
