tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post1934382443130986398..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Afghanistan's plainsFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-49143758369396313132009-12-10T15:08:41.000-08:002009-12-10T15:08:41.000-08:00A war endorsed by the UN is legal (not necessarily...A war endorsed by the UN is legal (not necessarily legitimate) because the UN represents almost all nations and a consensus inside the UN defines international law. There was a consensus to allow an internal UN(SC) majority to legalise warfare.<br />The UN can therefore make a war legal in regard to international law.<br /><br />There are of course about 170 different rule sets about national legality of warfare. the U.S. one does afaik require a declaration of war.<br /><br />Oh, and lest I forget to repeat myself: The invasion of Iraq in 203 was a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of the North Atlantic Treaty. That was a treaty violation by the U.S., UK and Poland.<br /><br />(I do usually point at this severe violation of the NATO treaty by the U.S. and UK when someone mentions Article 5 to assert that continentals should provide more auxiliary troops for the Afghan cabinet war adventure.)S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-68366488634566759022009-12-07T17:13:57.502-08:002009-12-07T17:13:57.502-08:00Jim,
can you please expand on what you mean by &q...Jim,<br /><br />can you please expand on what you mean by "illegal wars." I am not aware of the difference between a legal war and an illegal one. Thanks.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-37578587446819621982009-12-07T07:24:49.047-08:002009-12-07T07:24:49.047-08:00seydlitz,
I reckon we're saying the same thing...seydlitz,<br />I reckon we're saying the same thing in different words.<br />My point is that words cannot change the fact that these are illegal wars.<br />I feel that you slander coyotes by equating Cheny etc.. with their kind. I won't shoot a coyote b/c they are doing only what nature designed them to do. They fulfill a function.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-61072716574779382162009-12-07T05:16:30.767-08:002009-12-07T05:16:30.767-08:00Chief, I know it is slightly outside of the usual ...Chief, I know it is slightly outside of the usual ranges of discussions, but with the Copenhagen conference coming up this week, I would love to hear some views on the upcoming climate change conference, and about the recently exposed emails that were hacked showing climate change advocates censoring the skeptics. If anyone is educated on this entire topic (beyond seeing the Gore film), I would be very interested in reading about it.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-90233297053287299042009-12-06T20:40:43.878-08:002009-12-06T20:40:43.878-08:00Thought you guys might like this. Here's a ta...<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/hotline-to-the-jihad/story-e6frg6z6-1225807501121" rel="nofollow">Thought you guys might like this.</a> Here's a taste:<br /><br /><em>When I ask him about al-Qa'ida's objectives, he tells me it lacks strategic vision and instead relies on "shiny slogans" around which to rally its troops. He also thinks it is an authoritarian organisation, telling me bin Laden runs al-Qa'ida with "absolute individual leadership". This makes it "the first private sector jihad organisation in Muslim history".</em><br /><br />It's a great article. I've been reading her blog for about a month now and working my way through the archives. It's excellent.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73823658607760905902009-12-06T06:36:59.997-08:002009-12-06T06:36:59.997-08:00jim-
The reason we are in the AO has to do with p...jim-<br /><br />The reason we are in the AO has to do with political decisions made by the Bush Administration right after 9/11. We discussed this in detail in the comments connected with my last post.<br /><br />Obama could have made a significate policy change with his West Point speech. He could have redefined policy in line with the view represented here . . . <br /><br />http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/11/01/19888.html<br /><br />He would have three years to make this new policy a success and I think it could be, - providing he could find the right implementors. And this not only in positive results but in terms of de-escalation/de-militarizaton of policy which would bring additional benefits.<br /><br />Of course he did not, he essentially signed off on Stan the man's plan, which is the latest version of the military-heavy war on terror. The GOP will of course savage him in any case and he looks weak to people like me who voted for him, but the actual political interests behind the war are satisified.<br /><br />At the least Obama should hold various Bush administration officials accountable for their actions. Investigations of possible criminal actions by high officials - to me an open and shut case for many - are not an option but a necessity. Let Cheney and Addington give their interviews wearing orange jumpsuits from behind prison bars. Let any neocon "studier of war" still at large be laughed off the stage should they even attempt to speak. We need "closure" or a barrier between then and now, what is allowed and what is intolerable in regards to actions done in our name during 2001-8 imo.<br /><br />Back home a farmer will hang a coyote's tail from a fence to deter other coyotes, the scent of death combined with a barrier. Doing that ruins the pelt, but might save the livestock which is more than worth the loss of the bounty.<br /><br />If in three years time we are arguing whether Bush/Cheney "meant well" by their actions, if the "war on terror" is still being waged without question as to those who originated it, their motivations and actions, that is we are still avoiding "a disagreeable debate", then we are lost.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-84413932973519742632009-12-05T17:39:06.952-08:002009-12-05T17:39:06.952-08:00Interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...Interesting:<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120501376_pf.htmlAndynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-26031658053662033052009-12-05T14:24:42.235-08:002009-12-05T14:24:42.235-08:00Seydlitz,
But the point is- why are we even in the...Seydlitz,<br />But the point is- why are we even in the AO?<br />I know you are not advocating but rather only commenting. I just wanted to add my little 2 cents.<br />To all,<br />I couldn't listen to the speech, it was as onerous as anything sputtering from GWB's sorry mouth. I saw it as a continuation and validation of W's policies. What is the difference betw. Bush and Obama? At this point absolutely nothing. Wow, what a change!<br />Aviator and FDChief,<br />We're on the same page.<br />Aviator,<br />Of course there was a difference in the threats facing SVN , but they both came from the same place and that was the invalidity of the statehood of SVN. The same could be said about NVN since both were the impositions of western diplomats. A state cannot be imposed from external sources, either the populace has the need or they don't. SVN and the US NEVER had the same goals and this is just as true in AFGH.<br />By all sound military logic the SVN should have been able to fight the NVN on a conventional level. The SVN had one hell of a military machine, the problem imo was the lack of will to fight. I'm not criticising the SVN but they just ran out of ass somewhere north , west and east of Saigon and that was something that we couldn't airdrop on them.<br />jimjimhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-49010955036301881942009-12-05T14:23:40.276-08:002009-12-05T14:23:40.276-08:00Seydlitz,
But the point is- why are we even in the...Seydlitz,<br />But the point is- why are we even in the AO?<br />I know you are not advocating but rather only commenting. I just wanted to add my little 2 cents.<br />To all,<br />I couldn't listen to the speech, it was as onerous as anything sputtering from GWB's sorry mouth. I saw it as a continuation and validation of W's policies. What is the difference betw. Bush and Obama? At this point absolutely nothing. Wow, what a change!<br />Aviator and FDChief,<br />We're on the same page.<br />Aviator,<br />Of course there was a difference in the threats facing SVN , but they both came from the same place and that was the invalidity of the statehood of SVN. The same could be said about NVN since both were the impositions of western diplomats. A state cannot be imposed from external sources, either the populace has the need or they don't. SVN and the US NEVER had the same goals and this is just as true in AFGH.<br />By all sound military logic the SVN should have been able to fight the NVN on a conventional level. The SVN had one hell of a military machine, the problem imo was the lack of will to fight. I'm not criticising the SVN but they just ran out of ass somewhere north , west and east of Saigon and that was something that we couldn't airdrop on them.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-48946466656830073032009-12-03T15:52:32.049-08:002009-12-03T15:52:32.049-08:00Andy posted:
"That's a good point. For m...Andy posted:<br /><br />"That's a good point. For me, the most striking thing about Obama's speach were the contradictions - I found it a very ambivalent speach, one that pretty much everyone can use to confirm or deny their own preexisting views. Maybe that was the point."<br /><br />Yea, that's part of it imo.<br /><br />President Obama wasn't going to take any big chances. He could have made a radical change in national policy, but chose not to.<br /><br />He's keeping his options open, as he always does. He talks a lot about limits, which is good, and about putting people back to work. He's essentially an imperialist, as in Empire Party, but he doesn't really believe in it. He reinforced all the old myths and thus talked way over our heads to his real constituency. That would explain the ambiguity. He's not really addressing the citizens of this country - at West Point - if you follow me, but the various political economic interests that put him where he is today and have a stake in this war, both originally and in what it has become. <br /><br />The only bone thrown to the American people were the deadlines. Those deadlines the Reps are yelling about . . . as they would. What about those deadlines the president mentioned? <br /><br />Obama's team has already caved on Gitmo, and right after the Iraq deadline declaration their press secretary was describing the Iraq deadline as "aspirational" . . . <br /><br />http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-11-17-voa66-66734617.html<br /><br />wtf?<br /><br />Someone explain to me why we don't have Cheney's "balls" nailed to a fencepost at this point? I mean in terms of executive incompetence, corruption, criminality . . . Why exactly doesn't that work? The president described the "wrenching debate over Iraq" that "is well-known and need not be repeated here"? And buries it. <br /><br />As I have argued before this is just another postponement, allowing the government the ability to adjust to new situations/conditions. They have to keep military forces in the area for power projection. Once they leave, it isn't so easy geo-politically to return. From a military-minded, as opposed to strategically-minded? (if there still is such a thing), commander the option of remaining in both Afghanistan and Iraq must be a no brainer. Of course stay. <br /><br />But what if the wrong road had been taken way back in 2001?<br /><br />The speech Obama should have made. . .<br /><br />http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/11/01/19888.htmlseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-201127994471328282009-12-03T13:09:16.076-08:002009-12-03T13:09:16.076-08:00But bombing people we don't like is SO America...But bombing people we don't like is SO American. What's the fun of having a war - even a civil war - if you can't blow shit up from the sky?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-17441929284717663572009-12-03T10:47:29.058-08:002009-12-03T10:47:29.058-08:00And, Chief, my point was that if the problem had b...And, Chief, my point was that if the problem had been purely internal, tacair would have been unnecessary.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-40866907592378953562009-12-03T09:37:55.867-08:002009-12-03T09:37:55.867-08:00Jim, Al: ISTM that the problem with the ARVN was t...Jim, Al: ISTM that the problem with the ARVN was that we built it as a little copy of ourselves, complete with the dependence on tac air. When we left we took our air assets with us. We brought them back in '72 and helped Marvin stay upright. When we didn't in '75 he got his ass waxed.<br /><br />What proof do we have that we won't do the same in A'stan? So far what I see in both Iraq and A'stan is locals dressed up in their best imitation of the GIs who trained them, complete with sunglasses, vests and full battle rattle. If they look like us presumably they'll fight the way we do, or try, and that seems like the very worst answer we could provide.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-30095206099084649592009-12-03T09:34:34.725-08:002009-12-03T09:34:34.725-08:00Jim: You're right. No government, army or pol...Jim: You're right. No government, army or police force can be confident of putting down a rebellion. I'm sure the British felt confident that there was no way some raggedy-ass collection of farmers and merchants could hold off the might of the Royal Army and Navy. But we did.<br /><br />But I don't frankly care who sits on the gaddi in Kabul. If the Karzaites can do it, fine. If not, also fine. All I'm saying is that if our plan is to help the Karzaites win, sending a bunch of yay-hoo Eleven Bullets to walk around in Oakleys and flak vests "showing the Afghans how to fight" ain't cutting it.<br /><br />ISTM that if you can't get Afghans to fight for you - and Afghans are some of the fightingest peoples on Earth - then your problem goes deeper than tactics or techniques.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9854503336429973792009-12-03T08:09:13.415-08:002009-12-03T08:09:13.415-08:00Ranger
"We built one heck of an Army and pol...Ranger<br /><br /><i>"We built one heck of an Army and police force in RVN but that didn't add up to victory."</i><br /><br />It would have if the only task was to create a military dictatorship that faced no threat from outside the country. Hell after Tet and May 1968, the Viet Cong or any other serious internal threat ceased to exist. So there was more to RVN than that.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-61938454781527001972009-12-03T07:39:53.850-08:002009-12-03T07:39:53.850-08:00To FD Chief,
I repeat my mantra - there is absolut...To FD Chief,<br />I repeat my mantra - there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the assertion that building a AFGH Army will solve the problem. We can't even define what the problem of the day happens to be. Let alone lick it. BTW the ice cream cone concept is way too out there for me- let's call it a self smoking cigar.<br />We built one heck of an Army and police force in RVN but that didn't add up to victory. It won't in AFGH either. You can mold a turd but it's still a turd. Sorry if this messes with your ice cream visions.<br />PUBLIUS,<br />We'll never be able to prove or disprove if the CIA ran drugs or not but they didn't do anything to stop the trade . Or did they? I personally know a retd AF COL who tells stories of moving heroin in large quantities for RVN leaders. All with official approval. So what to believe.? I personally believe the worst but that's b/c I'm beyond redemption.<br />In closing -Armies do not determine success in insurgencies. They merely apply bandages to the wounds.<br />jim at rangerjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73206291104575462982009-12-03T07:25:53.240-08:002009-12-03T07:25:53.240-08:00Andy, bg: The really depressing thing is that the ...Andy, bg: The really depressing thing is that the reason The Speech would have to be ambivalent and work both sides would be...because it's not about A'stan at all. It's about playing domestic politics and covering your ass so you can't get zinged in the fucking gotcha game that is our political discourse at this point.<br /><br />I know I didn't have any real expectations for "change" but this is ridiculous. I at least expected Obama to have the courage of his convictions. This tells me he's pretty much another spineless pol.<br /><br />WASSSSSSSSSF.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-91958353886521603292009-12-03T05:24:36.895-08:002009-12-03T05:24:36.895-08:00Bg,
That's a good point. For me, the most st...Bg,<br /><br />That's a good point. For me, the most striking thing about Obama's speach were the contradictions - I found it a very ambivalent speach, one that pretty much everyone can use to confirm or deny their own preexisting views. Maybe that was the point.<br /><br />Chief,<br />I hope my guess is right too. Otherwise, I agree - there doesn't seem to be much of a policy.<br /><br /><br />Ael,<br /><br />Thanks for that! After reading Dyer's bio I'm pretty embarrased to admit I've hadn't heard of him until now.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43669510770523502872009-12-03T04:38:12.811-08:002009-12-03T04:38:12.811-08:00Andy,
I would fully agree with your assessment ex...Andy,<br /><br />I would fully agree with your assessment except for one problem. We used to always say in Iraq, we will redefine success, and once that is done, we could claim victory and go home. That is what the Iraq surge did. We redefined success by stating our goal was to give the Iraqi government the initiative and the lead, and then we could leave. We never based our conditions of withdrawal on the destruction, dismantling or end of the Iraqi AQ threat. <br /><br />I believe Obama made that mistake. Yes, he did state that the plan is to provide time and space for the Afghanis to build their country up, but he also was very clear that part of his intent and goal was to destroy AQ. I don't recall the exact language he used, but it seems to me that he may have contradicted himself by setting a goal that was not achievable (something he says that he as a leader should never do).<br /><br />By trying to play all sides, trying to make too many people happy, he may have redefined success in a way that will make "mission accomplished" impossible.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-87411224436181158512009-12-03T01:37:59.146-08:002009-12-03T01:37:59.146-08:00Andy-
I think you are on the right track. One ca...Andy-<br /><br />I think you are on the right track. One cannot conduct foreign policy separate from domestic policy, and the key element in domestic policy in modern America is winning elections. And, Tricky Dick Nixon laid the foundation for "withdrawal with honor" from a quagmire that was of our own making. Is that not, in effect, what we are doing in Iraq? Have we conducted a traditional "occupation" and guided the emergence of a stable government, civil calm and a promising economy? Hell, that's not even a goal, just getting out while violence is subdued seems to be the goal. A pretense of stability.<br /><br />So why not follow the same script? Do a "surge" and then begin to withdraw while the opponents recover and realize that a little patience with return the playing field to theirs alone. The critical objective is to get and keep the people on board during and after the process, and that worked pretty well for Nixon (other errors brought him down) and seems to be working in defusing Iraq. So why not Afghanistan?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56668005770026055282009-12-02T23:31:14.621-08:002009-12-02T23:31:14.621-08:00training? training?
(you'll have to imagine ...training? training?<br /><br />(you'll have to imagine me irish da's musical lilt as you say this)<br /><br />hoooly sayntid muthera swate swettin jayzus!<br /><br />where the president really riled me last night was when he used the tried and true strawman argument about how afghanistan wasn't going to be a new vietnam.<br /><br />well, fuck me tender, of course it's not. it's not anything like vietnam.<br /><br />it's afghanistan. that's the motherfucking problem yo. it's the same afghanistan that broke the persians, the macedonians, the mongols (under ghengis himself), the mughals, the british (3 fucking times) the russians (3 fucking times). what kind of goddamned hubris allows people to think that we are anything different?<br /><br />these people kicked ivan the terrible's ass. they kicked alexander's ass. they kick ghengis fucking khan. and they did it the same way they are doing it right now to us. they pack their ordinance on burros, pack it over mountains wearing shower shoes.<br /><br />the list of strategies that we've been going through are right in same order that alexander used. shock and awe first (if you were a sogdinian tribesman near what is today bagram, if you saw a macedonian phalanx, you were supposed to shit yourself and surrender at the sight of them). didn't work. try to draw them into a major engagement. nope, they don't play that. split your forces into smaller, more agile hunter/killer teams. bribe various tribes to quit killing you. hire the ones who refuse to take the straight up bribes as mercenaries. embark on the genocide run. (the problem with genocide is that some soft hearted grunt will always let a few nine or ten year olds get away. then you have to fight those fuckers by the time they're 14)<br /><br />the only thing we haven't tried is alexander's last tactic. settle the macedonian veterans down along the supply lines, marry them off to afghani women, then marry one yourself. of course, obama has that other marriage going. no problem. so did alexander.<br /><br />we won't fail there because of anything that we do or do not do.<br /><br />we will fail because we are who we are, and they are who they are.minstrel boyhttp://www.groupnewsblog.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-60318618083467170452009-12-02T22:10:55.393-08:002009-12-02T22:10:55.393-08:00Andy: I can only hope that Obama has performed the...Andy: I can only hope that Obama has performed the <i>maskirova</i> you're describing. Otherwise I'm left with the depressing conclusion that our central Asian policy is being run by the fucking Kagans, the best part of whom ran down their mother's leg.<br /><br />I just can't get over this whole notion that we can bribe and bully the Afghans into being little Americans with those cool Chitrali caps. Has ANYone been paying attenting the past eight years?FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-78215015471631908152009-12-02T21:09:30.772-08:002009-12-02T21:09:30.772-08:00Andy:
Gwynne Dyer agrees with you.Andy:<br />Gwynne Dyer <a href="http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=172671" rel="nofollow"> agrees </a> with you.Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-39989291733139162662009-12-02T20:22:14.932-08:002009-12-02T20:22:14.932-08:00I have to admit I found the speech underwhelming i...I have to admit I found the speech underwhelming in terms of content and the testimony and interviews today with Gates, Clinton & McChrystal didn’t give me much confidence because they kept spinning and contradicting each other on what’s going to happen in July 2011.<br /><br />After mulling it over for a while I’ve come up with a theory that might not be so bad if true. Warning, the following is highly speculative:<br /><br />In short, my speculation on the President's intent is to try to strategically replicate what’s happened in Iraq (think really BIG picture Iraq) since 2007. Here’s my speculation in a little more detail:<br /><br />I think the President realizes that withdrawal at the present time isn’t politically possible. It’s certainly not domestically if he wants to get reelected and it would cause problems elsewhere if we were to withdrawal under the perception we are doing so out of comparative weakness. Like it or not, it would be perceived almost everywhere as a defeat which could have some pretty serious second and third-order effects down the road. This same basic condition existed in Iraq in 2007. Consider the political (domestic and international) consequences of an Iraq withdrawal in 2007, when things were at their worst, compared to the withdrawal that’s presently ongoing. I think the current conditions are preferable.<br /><br />While we all know the “surge" was a tactical victory that did not solve any of Iraq's underlying social and political problems, bit it did <em>sort of</em> do what was promised, which was provide strategic space. The Iraqi government didn’t use that space for “reconciliation,” but we put it to use by agreeing to a firm timetable for withdrawal. So instead of leaving Iraq running naked with our dicks on fire, AQI cheering in the background, we’ll at least be walking out and in underwear, which is comparatively better (nevermind that we went in wearing a tailored suit and carrying bags of money). The tactical success of the “surge” stymied any accusations from domestic political opposition or foreign enemies that the US withdrawal is the result of weakness, vacillation or "surrender." It also showed that timetables are poltically OK in the proper context – given from a position of perceived strength. Maybe President Obama is trying to copy that in Afghanistan – to create a perception of strength in order to enable an orderly, honorable and politically beneficial withdrawal. <br /><br />Once Obama got into office he probably discovered that the situation in Afghanistan was worse than he thought and worse than the options his campaign rhetoric would support. At the same time he likely realizes that pulling out now would be a political disaster for him personally as well as too sudden and serious a reversal internationally. So how does one make withdrawal politically palatable and possible? In this case send in more troops, regain the initiative, plus up your local allies a bit (maybe even rent some tribals), throw the enemy back and create some strategic space to declare victory and withdrawal with few political consequences. By the time the Afghan house of cards falls, we’ll be gone. <br />(end highly speculative bit)<br /><br />What do you all think? Crazy? Stupid? Ignorant? All of the above?Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-67451204143037974202009-12-02T17:41:03.081-08:002009-12-02T17:41:03.081-08:00This is not going to work. Everybody here knows it...This is not going to work. Everybody here knows it and everybody knows why. Bg, the insider, tells us 11Bs and 310s aren't supposed to be out there training foreign devils. Duh. Shit, I'm trained to do it, speak foreign languages, like foreign devils, have no problem with eating weird shit and sleeping in weird places, but you still don't want to see some of my results. Man, it's tough. That's why some speciality areas are rank and training heavy. Unfortunately for us, the Afghans and our nation, that doesn't include grunts.<br /><br />Chief, I don't even want to get started on Wooldridge and the NCO mafia. No, CIA and other intel services did not run dope out of SE Asia, but yes, too many military (and civilian, BTW) personnel went over to the dark side. War lends itself to corruption—anybody recall Milo in Catch 22?—but it seems these less-than-hot war efforts we now favor are especially fertile breeding grounds for corruption of the good guys. <br /><br />Every old spook knows the truth and has the stories. The unfortunate reality is that our "clients" in these irregular adventures which we now favor are invariably pretty unsavory characters, so unsavory that it's hard to separate the good guys from the bad. The other reality is that the old expression, "lie down with dogs, and don't be surprised at coming up with fleas," is oh, so true.<br /><br />Prolonged time in these third world pest holes does nothing but corrupt our military and degrade its ability to defend the nation. I'm already seeing it. The Pentagon tells us, "best ever, blah, blah, blah." Today's ground forces are burned out. We're lucky there is no peer competitor on the horizon.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06189226852559033120noreply@blogger.com