Replies

That’s kind of the point of my Post #18. We always seem to tie our own hands with this self defeating nonsense.

The way you win wars is you kill & exhaust the enemy until he has no more will to resist. Somewhere along the line we forgot that in the 20th Century. If we used our overwhelming firepower, we could win the war quickly, but it would not be pretty. Instead, we create these fairy tell policies for the sake of good PR. In short, we care more about being liked & PR than victory. Its the loser who decides when the war is over—not the winner.

Well i guess this stongly depends on the final “goal” what we are fighting for. If the goal has been to fight Al Quaida then “we” are already done in afghanistan since years. because i guess 99% of the enemy our troops kill right now have nothing to do with Al Quaida. (of course this does not prevent terrorists from returning to Afghanistan “or of course many other places in this world” after we have left). But if the goal is to make Afghanistan a more or less “civilized” society where the “government” could/would prevent terrorists or other extremists to settle i guarantee you that this is impossible in Afghanistan. Because as said the place we call Afghanistan is not even something what you could call a country. it´s made of different tribes (who did nothing else than fight and kill each other “if there had been no forreign army to fight against at the moment” for centuries) who share some common space in this Hell hole we call country. so even if we would flatten this hell hole it would not solve the terrorist problem because after we depopulated the whole area how would we hinder terrorists to settle again? so the result would be that we would have killed millions of people (who are no dirrect danger to our countries “only” because they want to live their “way” of live in this cesspool). and in the long run it would have solved nothing because the real “terrorists” can settle there again anytime they want.