[les3547]

First, I don't excuse or approve of anything about the Taliban. That does not mean I want us to run that country. Second, the evidence of the Taliban's "enthusiastic" support for Al Qaeda is very sketchy. The most important training grounds and most enthusiastic support came from Pakistan. The Taliban offered the U.S. a guarantee of no attacks coming from its soil, and offered Bin Laden up for extradition upon convincing proof that he plotted 9/11. That offer was refused. Al Qaeda had become a military presence in Afghanistan--a presence which NATO was right to eliminate--and had turned from opposing the Taliban to supporting it. Getting rid of Al Qaeda knocked the legs from the Taliban. However, when we hung around to build a government there, we were stepping into a minefield (literally).

Even if the Taliban were as blameless as they professed, or if we should have thought better about handling things they way we did . . . what does it have to do with the courses of action available to us now, or how we should judge the accidental Koran burning or a serviceman going nuts? We are in Afghanistan, war does create insanity, mistakes happen. My main point has been that nothing that's happened is out of the ordinary when it comes to war. I'm not trying to excuse it, I am just saying an overly emotional reaction to those events gets in the way of thinking rationally about what should be done in Afghanistan in the future.

[GeneV]

Even if the Taliban were as blameless as they professed, or if we should have thought better about handling things they way we did . . . what does it have to do with the courses of action available to us now, or how we should judge the accidental Koran burning or a serviceman going nuts? We are in Afghanistan, war does create insanity, mistakes happen. My main point has been that nothing that's happened is out of the ordinary when it comes to war. I'm not trying to excuse it, I am just saying an overly emotional reaction to those events gets in the way of thinking rationally about what should be done in Afghanistan in the future.

Again, I don't think the Taliban is "blameless," but just that we don't belong there. We should just get out. Our track record trying to settle civil wars in medieval societies with vastly different cultures is abysmal.

We call it an accidental Koran burning. When invading infidels burn their holy books, they don't buy that. Our soldiers are not equipped to understand or function in that world, and we have no business trying to run it.

[metaglypto]

An American soldier was arrested in southern Afghanistan after walking off his base and opening fire indiscriminately on civilians today, killing 16 people.

I cannot say I have read every word of this thread, I have not. That said, what I have quoted from the original post does not indicate a failure on the US military at all. On the contrary it indicates a resounding success! The failure falls directly upon the shoulders of the individual who committed the crime, stress or no stress.

The success lies in the fact that the soldier was arrested, will be tried, and most likely be convicted of his crimes. Of all the cited quotes by les3547,(btw, good job on that Les) how many people in those countries have been arrested and tried for their crimes? Any of them? Have their countries made any serious attempts to stop those activities? BTW, in case you think I am an ignorant, flag waving, the US can do no wrong individual, I recognize much of the blame for what is currently going on in Afghanistan and the Mideast, falls squarely on the United States government and our foreign policy in those regions. We are now spending billions in $$$ and American lives trying to resolve at least some of it.

No, I am not ignoring the fact that oil is involved in the mix, and the US motives are still far from pure. What other countries are contributing anything close to what the US is contributing for their energy needs.

[dadipentak]

The guy was deranged of course but it's horrible both in terms of the tragedy for the victims and our standing there. I think we passed the point where we risk doing more harm than good in terms of our national interests--some time ago. Realistically, I suppose, it will be impossible to pull out in an election year but there's really no point to our presence: we can't install democracy like it was some sort of appliance.

[jolepp]

The charge that an American soldier murdered 16 civilians near Kandahar, most of them children, is one of those moments where the Western view of events in that country tends to differ vitally from that of Afghans.

Having visited Afghanistan many times over the space of 25 years, I would wager that the average person there is more angry about the Americans burning Korans at Bagram airbase.

It is not that the killing near Kandahar is not an awful tragedy for the families concerned, nor that people locally will be indifferent to their loss. Rather the Afghan attitude to suffering in war is born of decades of struggle, often merciless, and that people there will not tolerate insults to their religion.
...

BBC News - How Afghans will view Kandahar killing spree

[GeneV]

The guy was deranged of course but it's horrible both in terms of the tragedy for the victims and our standing there. I think we passed the point where we risk doing more harm than good in terms of our national interests--some time ago. Realistically, I suppose, it will be impossible to pull out in an election year but there's really no point to our presence: we can't install democracy like it was some sort of appliance.

Totally agree.

[GeneV]

BBC News - How Afghans will view Kandahar killing spree

Excellent article.

To Westerners, the idea that the perpetrator of these crimes seems to be a mentally unstable soldier marks an important distinction from civilians killed, say, during crossfire in military operations.

I doubt these distinctions will mean much to Afghans. Nato commanders say their research suggests that many in the restive southern provinces even blame "the occupiers" or "infidels" when Taliban bombs kill civilians, arguing they would not be placing them if the foreign troops were not there.

This gets to why we can do no good there. We can make whatever judgments we want about the superiority of our culture and how appropriately we have acted, but they aren't going to see it that way from an army of invading infidels. We are dealing with faith, tribal issues and superstition that we will never quite understand.

Makes me think about these guys (whose corner of Asia didn't even have the religion).

---

Last edited by GeneV; 03-12-2012 at 01:04 PM.

[tuco]

makes one wonder why we didn't learn this from Vietnam?

War is a business. One will be created if too much time goes by without one.

[séamuis]

War is a business. One will be created if too much time goes by without one.

but nation building is bad business. it costs millions, even billions and nothing is gained for the investment. only lost. so I ask again, why didn't we learn from Vietnam?

[jogiba]

You Tube

You Tube

"It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate and fear, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms"
"Short, successful military adventures are as effective as the Super Bowl in diverting peoples' attention from unpleasant truths."

[tuco]

but nation building is bad business. it costs millions, even billions and nothing is gained for the investment. only lost. so I ask again, why didn't we learn from Vietnam?

I didn't say it was a good business. Just how it is. Think how much industry we have built around the military spending. That can't sit still it seems.

[kswier]

I cannot say I have read every word of this thread, I have not. That said, what I have quoted from the original post does not indicate a failure on the US military at all. On the contrary it indicates a resounding success! The failure falls directly upon the shoulders of the individual who committed the crime, stress or no stress.

I have to respectfully disagree with this (actually partly disagree and partly agree). I agree that humans have determination over their actions, but organisations have the ability to create cultures and policies that can increase the likelihood of a catastrophe or decrease the probability of a catastrophe (and this was a catastrophe due to lives lost and the free propaganda we gave to the Taliban).

I hate to compare this with aviation accidents because there are many differences, but I will to help illustrate my point. A number of years ago, there were a number of aviation accident that occurred because the the first officer did not feel he had the authority to override the captain. My suspicion is that this culture existed because many pilots were ex-military (and thus they were used to a fairly rigid chain of command). Since then, crew resource training has been implemented to teach crew-members how to interact with each other in a variety of circumstances. This resulted in a decreased accident rate. My basic point is that the policies that an organisation puts in place can make a huge difference.

Recently, it seems like there have been a number of incidents against the people of Afghanistan (Quran burning, and I think there was another shooting a bit ago). To me, it appears as if there are some organisational deficiencies in the army that should addressed to decrease the likelihood of a repeat incident.

[Wheatfield]

I cannot say I have read every word of this thread, I have not. That said, what I have quoted from the original post does not indicate a failure on the US military at all. On the contrary it indicates a resounding success! The failure falls directly upon the shoulders of the individual who committed the crime, stress or no stress.

100% agreement with this.

The success lies in the fact that the soldier was arrested, will be tried, and most likely be convicted of his crimes. Of all the cited quotes by les3547,(btw, good job on that Les) how many people in those countries have been arrested and tried for their crimes? Any of them? Have their countries made any serious attempts to stop those activities?

I shudder to think about what the potential repercussions for this incident will be.

This isn't about comparing us to them, or at least it shouldn't be. The sad fact is, to "win" at this war, we have to make zero big mistakes, and the situation as it is makes every mistake a big one. The enemy has the advantage of not having to worry about that. If they die, they go sit at Allah's table and all that, if they kill our guys, they are killing infidels, who rank about the same as we rank garbage rats. It's a pretty nice gig in it's own way.

BTW, in case you think I am an ignorant, flag waving, the US can do no wrong individual, I recognize much of the blame for what is currently going on in Afghanistan and the Mideast, falls squarely on the United States government and our foreign policy in those regions. We are now spending billions in $$$ and American lives trying to resolve at least some of it.

No, I am not ignoring the fact that oil is involved in the mix, and the US motives are still far from pure. What other countries are contributing anything close to what the US is contributing for their energy needs.

The blame really falls on the West in general. The USA may have been used as the spearhead, but used she was. Tacit approval isn't much different from active approval.
Your country's ongoing lack of co operation regarding our oil sands project on environmental grounds proves to me that the USA has principals in this regard.

[les3547]

I think one has to look deeper to get at all the causes. How about sending soldiers again and again back into action, and denying post stress disorder treatment not only to active servicemen, but to veterans. Consider the story from Reuters of the massacring soldier's US home base, Joint Base Lewis-McChord:

Long before the U.S. soldier suspected of slaying 16 Afghan villagers was identified as an Army sergeant from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the installation had earned a reputation as the most troubled outpost in the U.S. military.

The Army station near Tacoma, Washington, has come under scrutiny as the home of several soldiers involved in wartime atrocities in 2010 and a base scarred by a record number of suicides last year. It has deployed troops repeatedly to Iraq, and late last year, sent soldiers to Afghanistan.

The independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes in December 2010 called Lewis-McChord "the most troubled base in the military."
"This was not a rogue soldier," Jorge Gonzalez, a veteran and activist, said in a statement about Sunday's killings. He called Lewis-McChord "a rogue base, with a severe leadership problem."

In the 2010 case, Lewis-McChord was the home base of five enlisted men from the former 5th Stryker Brigade who were charged with premeditated murder in connection with three separate killings of unarmed Afghan civilians.

The victims of those slayings, which until Sunday's massacre ranked as the most egregious atrocities by U.S. military personnel in 10 years of war in Afghanistan, died in random attacks staged to look like legitimate combat engagements.

. . . In the latest case of violence against innocent Afghans, an Army staff sergeant walked off a base in the Kandahar province in the middle of the night and began shooting civilians in two nearby villages. . . . The accused sergeant, now in custody, was part of the 2-3 Infantry, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Lewis-McChord. He had arrived in Afghanistan in December 2011 after serving three tours of duty in Iraq.

A 2008 military study found a sharp rise in the incidence of mental health problems reported among non-commissioned officers who were on their third or fourth deployment. . . .

SERIES OF SCANDALS

Four of the accused killers were convicted or pleaded guilty in court-martial proceedings of murder or manslaughter charges and were sentenced to prison. One was found guilty of cutting fingers off corpses as war trophies. Photographs entered as evidence showed several soldiers posed casually with the bloodied bodies of their victims.

Charges were dismissed against a fifth soldier last month, ending an 21-month investigation that grew out of a probe of rampant hashish abuse within the Stryker unit and resulted in seven other GIs charged with lesser offenses.

In a separate outburst of violence on New Year's Day, an Iraq war veteran from Lewis-McChord, former Army Private Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, shot and killed a National Park Service ranger at Mount Rainier National Park.

Barnes, who apparently suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and was discharged from the Army for misconduct in November 2009, was found drowned in a creek in the park the day after the killing.

U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, has said that the Army has identified some 285 base hospital patients whose diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder were reversed as they went through a screening process for possible medical retirements.
Last month, PTSD screeners at the hospital, Madigan Army Medical Center, were removed from duty while the Army Medical Command opened an investigation into why the diagnoses were changed, a spokesman for Murray's office confirmed. He said some constituents had complained that at least some of the diagnoses were "inappropriately" overturned.

Details of the investigation were reported last week in the Seattle Times.

Gonzalez, 32, an Iraq war veteran and executive director of GI Voice, a group that advocates for better treatment of soldiers and veterans, runs the Coffee Strong cafe and support center near Lewis-McChord. He said difficulties at the base reflect a "severe leadership problem."
"The leadership is not taking care of their soldiers," he told Reuters. "They are not being given the time or the right to go seek out help when they bring these issues up, that they might have mental health problems."

Jennifer McBride, 27, a Washington National Guard member and psychology student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, said she was organizing a stress-management military support group at Coffee Strong.

"It sounds bad, but it really doesn't surprise me," she said of the weekend rampage in Afghanistan. "As awful as it is, so many people are not getting care that they need. It surprises me that people come back sane."

[Ratmagiclady]

How do you excuse the Taliban from it's support (enthusiastically it seemed) of the work of Al Qaeda? So is what you suggest that we wipe out whatever Al Qaeda we might find at the time, but leave intact a power system that will support Al Qaeda once we get rid of a few? It's one thing to leave Afghanistan alone to support Al Qaeda if they didn't attack us, and quite another to have a training ground, with full support of the government, where attacks have occurred, and will continue.

Before 9/11, we 'libruls' were trying to make some noise about what the Taliban (from schools the US promoted in the Cod War then left to run rampant) was already doing to the women and others of Afghanistan.


Going into Afghanistan and kicking Taliban arse was a clean shoot. Bush diverting it to Iraq and dragging that out for ten years then leaving Afghanistan as it's been is another thing.


People have thought I was crazy for saying 'If I were fit, and since they wouldn't take me as a chaplain, I'd rather be there than just send the frat boys over and over till they snap and wonder what went wrong.'

This is kind of part of why.

These boys were overdeployed and stoplossed since before Bush smirked his way out of the situation room. While we were dealing with the Baggers here.. well, we got Bin Laden etc, and.... as for the rest, it's too late for cuddles. We don't like them and they *sure* don't like us, Time to go. One thing the likes of Bush don't understand is that if you overextend our military, you blow the mystique. Even if you make a trillion dollar hole to feed the corporations with and blame the Dems and poor for.