Printable View
True, but as Ohoh pointed out the Vietnam saga like others since was run for and ultimately lost in the political arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
HCM got it right when he said, "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."
Fair, though my point was to snubby's bizarre reasoning that the French won the American War of Independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Blackwater founder seeks to privatize Afghan war despite mercs getting butt kicked in Yemen
Upon departing as commander of US Forces Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson recently said that America's military strategy, revised a year ago under the Trump administration, is working.
At the same time, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater [currently known as Academi], apparently doesn't share that view and intends to renew his offer to his friend, President Donald Trump, to replace US military forces with Private Military Contractors, or PMCs.
Despite the differences, and any similarities, the military solutions for peace in Afghanistan offered by Nicholson and Prince are both delusional.
In saying that the latest US military strategy is working, Nicholson believes the current military solution is having the effect of "advancing us towards reconciliation" with the Afghan Taliban.
"I believe the South Asia Strategy is the right approach," Nicholson said during a brief teleconference with reporters at the Pentagon before the link was disrupted.
"And now we see that approach delivering progress on reconciliation that we had not seen previously. And I think that was because we clearly communicated to the enemy they could not wait us out."
While Nicholson believes that the military strategy of using troops to train and assist the Afghan military is going to work, he failed to point out that the US at one point had some 100,000 combat troops there and still couldn't defeat the Taliban. Today, there are no more than 10,000 soldiers who are not in a combat role but are there to train the Afghan military.
Nicholson's assessment comes despite the fact that the Taliban today has control over more than 50 percent of the country and has little trouble launching attacks on government buildings in the Afghan capital Kabul.
---
Even though the US war in Afghanistan is in its 17th year, Trump is sticking with his strategy that he implemented a year ago although privately he is expressing increasing frustration with the results.
Prince, whose sister is Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, believes it's time to renew his offer of PMCs and privatize the war in Afghanistan.
"I know he's frustrated," Prince said referring to the Trump's outlook on the progress of defeating the Taliban militarily in Afghanistan. "He gave the Pentagon what they wanted…And they haven't delivered."
---
In Yemen, the war effort continues with logistical and intelligence support from the US. Yet, it hasn't been going so well and has created a major humanitarian disaster for all the civilians the militaries of the Saudis and UAE have killed.
For the PMCs, the effort similarly has been a disaster, since their forces have been dealt numerous serious defeats in Yemen.
It raises the question of what the PMCs can do in Afghanistan if they are getting their butts kicked now in Yemen?
---
Unstated is the fact that despite the US military presence in Afghanistan, there also are PMCs working with them. One intelligence official told me that the ratio of PMCs to US soldiers in Afghanistan is better than five to one.
If that is the case, and PMCs already are fighting at some five times the strength of the US forces already in Afghanistan, what convincing information can Prince convey to Trump to get him to substitute his PMCs for the US military?
Trump's frustration suggests that inevitably he will need to face the fact that any military solution to halt the war in Afghanistan isn't going to work and that it is long past time to get the countries of the region together, with the US present, to come up with a lasting political solution.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437175-blac...anistan-yemen/
Are you really suggesting that a countries military does no practise using bombs prior to going to war. That it believes one of many suppliers words rather than their own results?Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
You moron stop cherry picking my posts. I said after WW2 and besides PH was not a battle it was a surprise attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
A politician you utter buffoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
Because you are trying to claim that the US military is incompetent when the facts clearly and decisively show otherwise. If the generals on the ground were in control during many of these conflicts it would have resulted in a decisive US victory on almost every account.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
To be a student of military history you have to separate overwhelming tactical victories and dominance from strategic loses. Is that too hard for you to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
After 17 years of training, "highly likely" by the most professional trainers the world has ever seen", one suspects either the training is ineffective, the ameristani trainers are crap or the locals somehow are bullshitting/hoodwinking the trainers. Is gender neutral, Erik Prince going to train the locals differently? Even with 10,000 ameristani "trainers" available allegedly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
The now for profit organisation has deduced that it alone has caused an improvement in the war. Failing to recognise others, including Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China are also involved. What evidence has he/she have to show the Taliban cannot "wait out" ameristani failing efforts, they have been for the past 17 years? Maybe a "strategic withdrawal" is in order rather than wait another 17 years to judge. Then ameristan can claim another heroic war "won".
Presumably the South Vietnamese soldiers, trained by the 'best of the best" also failed to absorb their training? Illustrated by the surrender once, allegedly, the ameristani army, air force, navy, intelligence and political support evaporated. What has gender neutral, Erik Prince got up his/her sleeve which will be different than the debacle and humiliating loss to little brown Asians the ameristanis suffered in the 1970's? Shooting deserters, who fail to meet contractually specified monthly kill targets, from his/her private, results driven, for profit army? Using, by western civilised countries and international laws, unacceptable methods, illegal weapons and tactics compared to ameristani's regime funded, volunteer, army, navy and air force, whose "Chief of Staff" is at least liable to be removed by public opinion?
Who will gender neutral, Erik Prince be accountable to, his/her shareholders, the second by second fluctuating share price, the elected Afghani Government, the UNSC or the regime who gave him/her the presumably secret, due to "commercial confidence", contract?
Presumably, the non military trained goldilocks has military experts advising him. As the previous multiple lodgers in the Whitehouse had. Whom he cannot disobey or he will be abandoned by his only source of power in ameristan. When one joins a wolf-pack as a junior member, there are many who will utilise you for dangerous missions, but few who will help when you fail.
A country like Argentina yes that is exactly what I am saying. They never used those WW2 era bombs before. They got them in surplus from the US years before the war started. They never used them in live fire drills before.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhOh
I think that you and jabir are laughably ignorant on not only the Falklands war but military history in general. This book would do heaps to enlighten you as to what really happened...
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Falkla.../dp/0393301982
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/08/44.jpg
But then again OhDoh you do not do facts well. :)
Erik Prince...another taxpayer financed cnut.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Xe
Unfortunately, that little idea did not work in the heat of battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
HMS Ardent was hit by bombs, at least one of which didn’t explode. The efforts to protect Ardent and save her, and her crew, would have diverted effort from war fighting. Unintended consequences I’m sure.
HMS Antelope was hit by at least 13 bombs, all of which exploded, resulting in her sinking the day after she was attacked.
HMS Yarmouth was placed in a dangerous position in Falklands Sound while evacuating the Antelope crew, before the vessel sank.
That amounts to the loss of two fighting ships and considerable effort diverted from the purpose of the war .
While I am sure the intent was to promote a positive outcome, it did not work as hoped.
Also worth remembering that the US could not be seen to be taking sides at the time, but continued to provide support via other means.
Because you are trying to claim that the US military is incompetent.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Utter nonsense, and an outright lie, though I don't expect you to grasp it in line with general ignorance that causes you to shift the goal posts as part of your digging technique.
The US military is the most advanced military force in the history of the world, and I cannot imagine anyone would disagree with this. But even the best machines only work as and how the controller tells them, and politicians control the military, and politicians think short term, which can turn a thoroughbred force into an incompetent, impotent mutt. In this respect, the US military is often an impotent mutt, and a noisy one.
:smileylaughing:Quote:
If the generals on the ground were in control during many of these conflicts it would have resulted in a decisive US victory on almost every account.
Common enough when you attack a post, that you follow by publicly beating yourself up with absolute confirmation of the very thing you are busy attacking. I'd hate to meet you or your kin in real life.
You are obviously a student of military history, as you are of everything else, and you would know the difference between tactical and strategic. So please explain the virtues of tactical victories over strategic losses, and then the political implications of tactical victories over strategic losses, and then who brings about the strategic losses (simplified for your benefit: military or politicians), and then of course, just how efficient the most advanced military in the history of the world can be under these conditions.Quote:
To be a student of military history you have to separate overwhelming tactical victories and dominance from strategic loses. Is that too hard for you to understand?
Or better still, ignore it and find something else to twist or lie about.
24 hours from ordering the book, reading it and no doubt quoting verbatim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
Please don't say there are other books one can buy, with different perspectives, that might cause an argument. Better that one must only buy the best book for military men, women and the gender variable, as suggested.
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=19149&stc=1