An Un-winnable War?
 

British doctor and nine others killed in Afghanistan ambush - Telegraph

I'm beginning to think this is an un-winnable war and becoming a second Vietnam. I was listening to a BBC report where the locals stated to the reporter they would rather have Taliban than the occupying forces. I know it is the "occupying" part that is the issue but the local "army" is not effective so effectively they would prefer the old regime.

We haven't found UBL so he is either dead, being well hidden by the indigenous or in Pakistan/elsewhere and being well hidden. The sooner we are OUT the better.

Some heathens massacred some good people.

This is precisely why we are there is begin with.

It is unreasonable to expect heathens to go quietly.

They will be heathens whether we're there or not there. Afghanistan and Iraq are money-holes now.

Heathens have been massacring "good people" for thousands of years.

It is unreasonable to assume that that is the reason we're still there.

War is expensive. Wars that are worth starting are worth finishing.

Some wars just make the elite rich. These two are prime examples.

Wars that make the elite rich also create a lot of jobs. Since we don't allow looting anymore, in order to get rich from a job a person needs to own a company that provides vital goods or services to the war effort. It is at least partially taxpayer money, but it is essentially the more effective equivalent of a government make-work program.

You guys make my teeth hurt with this An Un-winnable War crap.

No war is Un-winnable... not when you have the resources that the USA has today.

We lack only the will to do what is required to win.

So let's just kill everyone over there. And I mean everyone. You don't lack the will for that, do you?

Actually no, I don't. But that's not the point and you know this.

You 'only' need kill 'enough' demonstrating a will to do so... the remaining will surrender. Then you will have won.

One wins a war when the other side no long can or will fight.

i know that you know this Tann... I'm just not so sure that Obama does.

I'm not sure you see this, but you have just described why the Afghan war is un-winnable from the US perspective anyway.
All the taliban has to do is kill enough American occupiers to demonstrate their will to continue killing American occupiers, and America will withdraw.

And it's far easier for them to kill that number of Americans to get us to give up and leave, than it is for us to kill enough Taliban for them to give up and accept the government we impose on them.

We can leave so easily, they can't leave, that means we can lose easily, they can't lose.

And to get more to the point, people care about money more than they care about lives.
The Taliban has a huge cost advantage in this war, we spend millions to counter what they can do for a few thousand, and they have been getting us to finance their effort.
At some point the cost of the war in dollars is going to become the reason for ending it.
Because when faced with a tax increase to pay for the war, most people will be able to write off the effort, rather than see it hit their wallet.

Allrighty, let's just start killing everyone, and I mean everyone, until such a point as it's 'enough'. Why aren't you advocating for that?
One wins a war when the other side no long can or will fight. Wombats come from Australia!
i know that you know this Tann... I'm just not so sure that Obama does. Again: If you don't lack the will, let's just wade into everyone over there and kill the fucking shit out of the entire populace up until such a point as it's 'enough'.

Sound good?

No, it's not quite that simple. Contractors are taking a lot of taxpayer money but not doing what they're contracted for. Hell, we lost billions in thin air in Iraq.

In other words, you want us to become terrorists. Isn't that why we're fighting them?

Assuming you want to be a terrorist, how can you completely win a war on terror, while using it?

Apparently you and King George III are two people who believe what you say, and I suspect it will be as big a surprise to you as it was to him when he learned that that idea is wrong.

Actually the British did not apply as much force as was necessary to subdue the colonial rebels and that is why they lost.
Half -assed farfare is never successful.

How much force do you believe would be needed to make Americans heel to that boot? My own gut is that in fact England learned the hard way that force does not work. How many colonies do they have left? Watch the movie Ghandi for another view of the problem. Read The Prince. Military might is never enough for what you suggest.

So, In order to win a war we need to return to the mantra of total war, once the army is beaten then the population need to be annihalated?

Rather like the dark ages when every male over the age of 5 was put to the sword. Makes you think that the 20th century softly softly attitude is wrong.

I'm wondering why the OP would call a war unwinnable, when his example is that the Taliban brilliantly executed an ambush on unarmed civilians. Wow, how impressive. Amazulu, you and I could have pulled that off.

As to whether the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, it is unwinnable to the extent that as in Vietnam, our war aims and strategy aren't clear. We need some leadership in that regard to establish achievable war aims, and a strategy for achieving said aims.

First off let’s get one thing straight here.

Not all the violence in Afghanistan is caused by the Taliban. The reports that I am getting are saying that this attack on the medical workers was a robbery not an antigovernment elements attack. The Taliban are naturally quick to claim credit for any attacks by robbers as their own and the press is just as quick to believe these claims.

Afghanistan is pretty much a lawless place where there is extreme poverty and lots of weapons. Add in that the local population knows that the average expat is usually walking around with more cash than he will see in a year of honest labour and you get a place where there are a lot of robberies.

These aid workers drive into remote areas with no guards or weapons. In fact they are proud of the fact that they have stickers in their vehicles stating that the vehicles do not carry weapons. They think that this will save them by not provoking some starving guy with a gun who wants to rob them. I think that these no gun stickers just say “rob me, I cannot shoot back so you will not get hurt when you shoot me.”

Personally I do not drive outside my construction camp in Afghanistan without about 12 armed guards, plus the weapons that I carry myself. I simply do not fully trust anyone who can walk home from the fight.