3 ms·

Appreciate your service and your viewpoint but disagree. How do we win in Iraq? We supported the Shia backed government and they used their power to oppress S

by poof131 11y ago

Appreciate your service and your viewpoint but disagree. How do we win in Iraq? We supported the Shia backed government and they used their power to oppress Sunni political opponents. Now the Sunni regions are in revolt with ISIS ruling large swathes on the ground and the Iraqi government is incapable of stopping them even with support from Iran. I saw first hand SF officers having to deal with political target packs from the Iraqi government while our senior military leaders would turn a blind eye. How do we win in Afghanistan? The place seems more tribal than Iraq. Do we stop the drug trade or support it? We can’t seem to figure that out ourselves. We payed ex-DEA agents outrageous money to run around and destroy poppy fields while Marines I know where happy to ignore the fields if the tribal leaders stopped the roadside bombs. If we can’t figure out our own objectives how can we ever ‘win’. Personally, I’m all for using SF/Airpower to help a side we believe to be the best and letting the naturally lines form: Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc. The region is beset with fake boundaries dictated by foreign powers and our foray hasn’t helped. We can’t allow ISIS to exist, but ground troops aren’t the answer. I’d begin by funding all limited wars through SOCOM, otherwise big military will stomp-in, take as much money as it can, and create havoc. Let the units trained in FID working with the locals dictate the support assets they need. And I’d hardly say we conducted these wars on the cheap. Could have been a lot cheaper regarding money if big military had stayed out and we focused only on routing out Al-Qaeda and not on some fantasy of nation building. And cheap regarding KIAs, well I’m glad about that one since more people killed doesn’t necessarily mean a better outcome. I don’t believe more troops, more force, and more governance imposed by an external entity would have solved the problems of either Iraq or Afghanistan. The problem wasn’t a lack of political will but a lack of political reality and an inability to actually figure out realistic goals that could be accomplished based upon the situation on the ground and the assets we have as a country.

dforrestwilson1 11y ago
Respectfully, You seem to think that SOCOM is a solution. I regard it as a problem. I'm not saying SF isn't great, particularly Green Beret, but a lot of the special forces guys are hanging out on FoBs by day, and dealing out death by night. That's not governance. Assassination does nothing to settle a land dispute between farmers. Taking lives only disrupts local communities, and foments chaos instead of resolving it. That's why the Vietcong and the Taliban endured. They enforce the rule of law, even if the laws themselves are horrid, a stable system exists. The insurgents live in the village and therefore live by the same laws. That is governance. SF/Airpower runs counter to this. I've heard the "let the borders redraw themselves" argument before, but the truth is there are countries where different ethnicities govern and live in peace. Style of governance may need to change but it is not impossible. By cheap I mean cheap in terms of lives, and I would argue that yes these wars have been incredibly cheap in American lives for those who have not fought. For Iraqis, Syrians, and Afghans it is another story.
- poof131 11y ago
  I agree on governance, but disagree on how to get there. One, I wouldn’t say SOCOM was the problem and call the operators assassins. The military started off stupid, dropping a bomb on every person planting an IED. Then people got smarter and realized that understanding a network and finding the leaders was more important than just killing low level people trying to feed their family. SOCOM did a good job of finding those leaders. Two, I would focus on Army SF. Training locals to operate themselves is more important than direct action. I’d just move FID directly under SOCOM. The Navy and Air Force spent way more then they should have in these wars, costing the country trillions. The Army and Marines weren’t much better. Green Berets were built to work with the locals. And with an air power supplement they can prevent places from getting over run. Three, governance requires other agencies. Start with a minimal footprint of SF and Airpower. Then try to bring in state and aid and other agencies quickly. Only bring in more mainline military units as needed and get them out as quick as you can. This will never happen with the budget flowing directly through the military. I think SOCOM focusing on FID with a more limited budget then the entire military and getting in other agencies quickly would be a much better approach to governance. When the “big” military comes in, they come in for total war. You get fighter jets, bombs, and battalions. Whether you need it or not, the military will find a place for everything to keep it’s spot in the budget. Sometimes you do need tanks and bombers, but not where you are trying to govern. We need to differentiate between total war and governance with people getting shot at and always strive for the latter. I don’t think the military will ever be able to effectively govern, it’s not its job. So less ground troops and more SF and Airpower and more State Department please and get rid of SOCOM as soon as State is comfortable. That's the approach I'd vote for.
Spooky23 11y ago
You don't "win" without following the money and following the motivation. We've developed an exceptional ability to kill people, but I'm skeptical whether that has make us safer in 2016 than we were in 1996.
- poof131 11y ago
  I agree. Follow the money. I think all war profit should be nationalized. No corporate gain from killing people in foreign countries. Then at least greed won’t be a motivation. Are we safer? I’m not sure, probably not. We did deal with Al-Queda and it’s roots existed before ’96. ISIS became the new idiot on the block, but was that from the mishandling of Iraq or Syria, likely a bit of both. And I blame regional issues more than any US actions for the lack of safety. Safer is a tough term to define specifically but war doesn't generally make people safer, I'd agree with that.

by poof131 11y ago

dforrestwilson1 11y ago

Respectfully, You seem to think that SOCOM is a solution. I regard it as a problem. I'm not saying SF isn't great, particularly Green Beret, but a lot of the special forces guys are hanging out on FoBs by day, and dealing out death by night. That's not governance. Assassination does nothing to settle a land dispute between farmers. Taking lives only disrupts local communities, and foments chaos instead of resolving it. That's why the Vietcong and the Taliban endured. They enforce the rule of law, even if the laws themselves are horrid, a stable system exists. The insurgents live in the village and therefore live by the same laws. That is governance. SF/Airpower runs counter to this. I've heard the "let the borders redraw themselves" argument before, but the truth is there are countries where different ethnicities govern and live in peace. Style of governance may need to change but it is not impossible. By cheap I mean cheap in terms of lives, and I would argue that yes these wars have been incredibly cheap in American lives for those who have not fought. For Iraqis, Syrians, and Afghans it is another story.

poof131 11y ago
I agree on governance, but disagree on how to get there. One, I wouldn’t say SOCOM was the problem and call the operators assassins. The military started off stupid, dropping a bomb on every person planting an IED. Then people got smarter and realized that understanding a network and finding the leaders was more important than just killing low level people trying to feed their family. SOCOM did a good job of finding those leaders. Two, I would focus on Army SF. Training locals to operate themselves is more important than direct action. I’d just move FID directly under SOCOM. The Navy and Air Force spent way more then they should have in these wars, costing the country trillions. The Army and Marines weren’t much better. Green Berets were built to work with the locals. And with an air power supplement they can prevent places from getting over run. Three, governance requires other agencies. Start with a minimal footprint of SF and Airpower. Then try to bring in state and aid and other agencies quickly. Only bring in more mainline military units as needed and get them out as quick as you can. This will never happen with the budget flowing directly through the military. I think SOCOM focusing on FID with a more limited budget then the entire military and getting in other agencies quickly would be a much better approach to governance. When the “big” military comes in, they come in for total war. You get fighter jets, bombs, and battalions. Whether you need it or not, the military will find a place for everything to keep it’s spot in the budget. Sometimes you do need tanks and bombers, but not where you are trying to govern. We need to differentiate between total war and governance with people getting shot at and always strive for the latter. I don’t think the military will ever be able to effectively govern, it’s not its job. So less ground troops and more SF and Airpower and more State Department please and get rid of SOCOM as soon as State is comfortable. That's the approach I'd vote for.

Spooky23 11y ago

You don't "win" without following the money and following the motivation. We've developed an exceptional ability to kill people, but I'm skeptical whether that has make us safer in 2016 than we were in 1996.

poof131 11y ago
I agree. Follow the money. I think all war profit should be nationalized. No corporate gain from killing people in foreign countries. Then at least greed won’t be a motivation. Are we safer? I’m not sure, probably not. We did deal with Al-Queda and it’s roots existed before ’96. ISIS became the new idiot on the block, but was that from the mishandling of Iraq or Syria, likely a bit of both. And I blame regional issues more than any US actions for the lack of safety. Safer is a tough term to define specifically but war doesn't generally make people safer, I'd agree with that.