Quote: (01-27-2015 03:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:
Quote: (01-26-2015 10:07 PM)TonySandos Wrote:
Now on to the numbers and support aspect, this is what I mean when I speak against the politicians getting us in this mess. I'm on the fence on if it would've helped in Afghanistan, but Iraq would've benefited from an actual surge rather than a relative one. Years, infrastructure and Iraqi lives could've been saved with true permeation of force. Iraq may have been "won", but it definitely could've been won better. I asked the locals what their thoughts were on the pullout in the next few years and the response was always an ominous look or "civil war". It make me sick and angry like nothing else when the ISIS fiasco started because it was so obvious to the people on the ground.
Sure - a huge military force would have managed to pacify the country better, though only to a degree. Also they should have kept the entire lower Saddam police and military apparatus in place - this might have helped even more.
But I think very high up they knew exactly that it would end like that - what looks like incompetence is in my opinion an excellent long-term plan and they have mayhem and destruction in store for Muslim countries. A civil war fits well in that scenario - the soldiers and the civilians are the ones who suffer the most from that kind of strategy. And the US soldiers especially are lied to and sent to control a basically uncontrollable situation that is intentionally designed to go to shit anyway.
That's obvious on the gov/police structure, so I though it wasn't worth mentioning directly. I do agree, but I'm saying the assumption of what could've been done with a massed US/ISAF force is greater than most would believe. Iraqis are more civil and smart than one would believe as well. Iraq was only as out of control as the vacuum left for imams to exploit was wide.
I don't account the failures in Iraq and Afghan as evil genius plots by some corporate heads. Instead, I take it for what it was presented as; opportunistic profiteering and political cronyism was leveraged so some people in the top government positions could put on a international dick measuring contest.
From the inside, there's less super conspiracy than one would believe. It all comes down to the ineptitude of government("don't attribute to evil what can be explain by ignorance") and corporate endeavors.
Look for:
-could this be explained by the possibility that an asscovering maneuver is taking place?
-could the initial reasons behind this issue be caused by lack of communication or grave misunderstanding?
-is ego or bureaucracy to blame?
Quote: (01-27-2015 02:01 AM)MidWest Wrote:
I have brothers and cousins who are all Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, and they have some resentment towards Muslims based off of what they experienced during the war. I think troops should be given this pass, because in war you cannot have mercy or compassion for the enemy and you have to hate the enemy. You cannot look at the enemy and see him as an equal to you, but as an evil savage who is trying to destroy everything about you and kill you and your fellow people. You cannot be politically correct in war, just not possible.
This seems like a big misunderstanding from the public between actions as they are implemented compared to how they are perceived.
The paranoia is more apt at describing the proper mind state than anger. You want to be like "CAN I HELP YOU MOTHERFUCKER?!" in a general sense, but everyone in these recent campaigns knew how to ease off that mentality in the necessary circumstances and safer areas. Yes, the combatant is given no remorse and even dehumanized, but fuck them to be honest-we're both willing participants in the same game and the prize is life.
It's a hard mental shift that can't be downplayed. You may be trying to breathe hate from your eyes into the soul of some guy passing on the street that you think may be tucking a rkg grenade to gently shooing a hapless old woman out of the path soon after.