WWII was won with the objective of absolute victory. It was also the last time the American people have been united in the belief that war was a necessary last resort.

quote:

During Vietnam, U.S. military commanders relied on dubious measurements to persuade Americans that they were winning.

Vietnam was the first time the U.S. military was used in this way. The objective wasn't absolute victory, but "containment". Also, the American people questioned whether our "vital interest" was at stake.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
I’ve done 7 deployments to Afghanistan including a year embedded with an Afghan attack squadron. Time to GTFO, we don’t have the political balls to kill the number of people we’d need to kill to win. And even if we did, it would gain our nation nothing.

Best course of action for our nations interest- leave immediately...

Thanks for your service and your perspective, arabiancowboy.
I completely agree. We never should have been there to begin with.

quote:

It's been a tremendous success for defense contractors.

Yes... like Milo Minderbinder, war is always good for the suppliers. It's also nice for the decision makers in the military when defense contractors open the door to a cushy second career upon leaving the military.

Of course "wars" are win-able. Provided it is non-nuclear, not a MAAD type event.

At some point, one side will be either defeated, or surrender, or retreat.

What comes after the "war" is a different story. What we have been doing in Afghanistan hasn't been a "war" since 2002 or even late 2001.

Current doctrine (developed post 9-11 and initial Iraq invasion) is that operations follow a 5 phase process. These phases are not necessarily sequential and can apply outside of a hot "war." I think might be changing again though with the 5 phases being tossed? It is still a decent conceptual model at any rate.

There is a zero phase "Shaping" where we are using military and diplomatic elements to shape conditions in the target country. We are doing this simultaneously all over the world, all the time. Negotiations, military exercises, joint training, military equipment sales etc.

Phase 1 is "Deter." Pretty self-explanatory, everything from threats to positioning of a carrier group, beefing up forces in the region as well as a continuation of phase 0 efforts. Most famous Phase 1 (though we didn't call it that) was the 6 month build up for "Desert Shield." Saddam should have taken the hint...

If deterrence fails, we go to Phase 2 "Seize the Initiative". This is best characterized by gaining air dominance, the "shock and awe" striking strategic targets. It can also include limited ground operation, raids, seizing key facilities such as airfields, ports, oil/gas refineries etc.

Phase 3 is "Dominate" What most think of as the actual "war." Rolling over the berm to start "Desert Storm." Pushing into Iraq again in 2003 and tanks rolling through Baghdad about a month later. It takes us about a month to have an armor division in theater ready to go (really simplifying), so that is why we can't just go right to Phase 3 unless it is so small a thing as to be handled with a single armor brigade or a MEU.

Phase 4 is "Stabilize" where you have defeated the enemy, major combat is over, and you are training/equipping host nation elements, building infrastructure, fighting an insurgency perhaps. This is where we have spent most of the time in Iraq and A-stan. It can go back though, I'd call the "Surge" in '08 a going back to Phase 3 in Iraq. We could also skip Phase 4 and just leave like we did after Desert Storm.

Phase 5 is "Transition to Civil Authorities." Getting the host nation stable enough so we feel we can leave w/o having to come back. This is where we have failed in A-stan and may (will probably) never reach...
It is fairly straight-forward in a European country though like post WWII and Japan as well.

what a croc that drivil is.

That is what a blotted, inefficient, top heavy leadership failing superpower does, is.

Four of the five could/should be eliminated imho

What we fail to grasp is that as a nation / people, Afghanistan is a good 2000 years behind the regular civilized countries. Iraq probably several hundred years, give or take.

They don't value what we value and it's a waste to continue trying after 18+ years.