18 ms·

Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against the Forever War?

164 points by bkohlmann 9y ago

RUG3Y 9y ago
After returning from Iraq, I was jaded. Young when I started, I thought we were doing a good thing. My idealism was stripped away pretty quickly. After being stateside for a while, there were rumors that our unit would be deploying to Afghanistan. A Lt. Colonel came and gave a presentation to the company about conditions there. During the Q.A., I stood up and asked, "Sir, what are we really doing there? For the life of me, I can't understand the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who attacked us on 9/11." To put it mildly, that did not go well. I exited the Corps after my first enlistment and I'm a bitter old veteran now. The point I want to make here is that the voice of integrity in the military are in the lowest ranks, and they leave as soon as they can, as the situation is intolerable for them. You don't rise in the ranks as a career officer or NCO if you don't believe in the mission.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Afghanistan actually made more sense than Iraq since the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. So when 9/11 happened, it made sense to go after them. Iraq never made sense on the other hand.
  - baursak 9y ago
    More sense than Iraq, but less sense than Saudi Arabia.
    - mjevans 9y ago
      The sooner the rest of the world can get on to solar, wind, hydro, and modern atomic reactors (not the old dangerous kind, but properly supervised, maintained, and "waste reducing" ones that produce only a small bit of the really bad stuff) the sooner we can de-fund terrorists.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    But they dropped the ball due to the obsession with Iraq and let him get away
  - megous 9y ago
    Maybe on this surface level. But the intervention was and still is a nonsensical mess. Killing and locking up/torturing people left and right, whether pro or anti-taliban. Making new enemies from potentially pro-american tribes. Empowering some tribes against others, causing grief, resentment, rebellion and instability. Helping people with retribution against old rivals. The current conflict is already longer than the Soviet-Afghan war. Already 10x more civilians died than in 9/11. Really what's the purpose? It hardly can be justice at this point. In 2001 there were 45000 taliban fighters, US killed 60000, now there are around 60000 taliban. Clearly this is not a way to get rid of taliban, if that is the goal. I'm reading this at the moment: https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/0805091793 https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/080509179...
  - chewz 9y ago
    Taliban and Al Qaeda had been at each other throats especially post 9/11. There has never been love lost between them. It had been personal decision of Mullah Omar to put islamic solidarity over realpolitik. Some clever policymaking - mixing military threats with financial incentive - could result in catching most of Al Qaeda possibly Bin-Laden included and avoid 16 year war. But B-1 coming with vengeance after mountain caves looked better on TV and as propaganda spin post 9/11.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > For the life of me, I can't understand the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who attacked us on 9/11. The Afghan government at the time offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, refusing to hand over its members after they had declared war on the U.S., attacked USS Cole, hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade CEnter & the Pentagon, killing thousands; the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan was to demonstrate to every country that shielding those who commit acts of war against the United States is itself an act of war against the United States — and that being in a state of war with the United States is an unhealthy condition. What's the strategic purpose of staying in Afghanistan? 'You broke it, you fix it': having invaded, having destroyed the previous government, it is our responsibility to build a functioning government. Additionally, we desire to prevent the resumption of conditions similar to those which enabled the rise to power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place.
  - the-dude 9y ago
    They did not refuse to hand over OBL, they wanted to see some proof. Which was of course a-OK for the US, they did not want OBL, they wanted to invade.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      I don't doubt the US was happy to go to war (and do doubt Bin Laden would have gone quietly if the Taliban had said "you're welcome to come and arrest him") but it's something of a stretch to imagine Afghanistan only wanted to "see some proof" even if that was one of their stated positions. The Taliban had spent the last three years refusing multiple countries' requests to extradite Bin Laden for other bombings and was lead by a man married to one of Bin Laden's daughters who compared the notion of handing over Bin Laden as a betrayal akin to the "end of Islam"
      - the-dude 9y ago
        Fair enough, I knew my position was 1 dimensional. Although you might be correct on all your points, it glosses over the fact there might actually be no proof at all.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  "Sir, what are we really doing there?" Wading through the knee-deep shit and blood that is a political quagmire. But I can't imagine a man who is entrusted with inspiring people to go out and die for said quagmire is allowed to say that.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    These infantry officers really buy their own bullshit. I've never met one who didn't. It's like religion - the cost of facing the music is just too high for some people. Cognitive dissonance etc.
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    Did you ever see a historical chart showing the supply of heroin coming out of Afghanistan? It stopped in 2001 but ever since the USA got there it's been growing steadily. Heroin is a huge business with many dark and powerful players.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  I had a similar experience, except in the Army "Reserves", in Iraq, and asking my "stupid" question to our Major instead of a Lt. Col. My rank didn't survive the deployment, as I was attached to another unit at the time and asking questions put me high on his shit list. I guess I was lucky my home unit was kind enough to return the stripes before my inglorious departure a few after that deployment. You are 100% right that folks who don't toe the line, don't make much past E4, although there are a few older NCO's who still maintain their integrity, and take care of their troops. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "just" war, but I do know we were not fighting one, and the military we have today is an overpriced facade of what it claims to be.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    Well spoken. I made it to Sergeant - I was actually promoted my last week, which was a surprise to everyone. Apparently I was the only person in the company to complete all the prerequisites for promotion that quarter. A nice "fuck you" on my way out the door.
  - le-mark 9y ago
    I think it's more of a situation where, no one at that level is going to change anything, so just talking about the absurdity is frowned upon just for the simple reason of negatively effecting moral, and negatively impacting your next promotion review. Independent thought? Bah! I found the Army to be highly political, everything anyone with rank did was intended to bolster their reviews in the eyes of their superiors. And being a hard charger, always on mission was an easy way to do it. I started to type some stories, but suffices to say, there's a lot of stupid stuff in the military.
    - RUG3Y 9y ago
      Spot on. I don't think the military is a place for people who think too hard. I don't want to make blanket judgements though because I met a few excellent people that earned my respect and I'm happy to know them.
      - 9y ago
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Afghanistan I do sorta get why the US got involved. I think it’s impossible to “win” there, but I get the involvement. But Iraq was a completely retarded situation. Funding goddamn terrorists in Syria was retarded too. Regime change is retarded in general, aside from the dramatic events like WW2. It never works. Land war on the other end of the world serves only one purpose: just to show that the US government is a dangerous psychopath who will fuck you up at the slightest provocation, or sometimes even without one. Experts in geopolitics (ie George Friedman) call this “projecting power”. A secondary goal is to destabilize regions so that other countries are affected and they don’t consolidate their power and threaten the US interests. A good example are Georgia and Ukraine: crises were created out of nothing to keep a festering boil on Russia’s ass. It’s actually not a bad strategy, but it does tend to backfire, and when it does, it costs a ton of money.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    It's also highly immoral. Destabilization and war in foreign lands results in devastating consequences for the civilian population. The US Government has a lot to answer for, and likely never will.
    - nsjdjdjri88 9y ago
      Because the people change. How do you hold the people of today responsible for actions of the dead? That’s another form of tyranny Lift the oppressed but don’t oppress the rest for the past. Now, I don’t mean losing your cars and multiple homes as oppression. Not defending unfettered materialism Thomas Jefferson advocated for resetting the Constitution and laws for the same reason. Why hold people on 2017 to the philosophy of 1776? Stop thinking of it as hold government responsible and think about holding the individuals responsible The former is used as a faceless abstraction to afford cover for doing the latter They aren’t Gods and should be put in their place as such
      - RUG3Y 9y ago
        Because our shenanigans in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and dozens of other countries happened so long ago...Is that your argument? The United States is directly responsible for worldwide violence just within the last decade. I'm not talking about Thomas Jefferson here. The government consists of individuals. George Bush. John McCain. Barack Obama. We'll likely never know who all of the people are that influence these terrible policies.
- nsjdjdjri88 9y ago
  > After returning from Iraq, I was jaded. Young when I started, I thought we were doing a good thing. My idealism was stripped away pretty quickly. My grandfather said the same about Korea. My step father said the same about Vietnam. My dad’s youngest brother said the same after Iraq 1. My brother said the same after Iraq 2. My nephew said the same after Afghanistan. Voices around world have been saying this forever. But too many feel it’s their only real option. The real fight is taking on this notion and making the social changes needed to make it so it’s the worst option Hint, it’s not neoliberalism and startup phone app companies going to get us there. Their “change/save the world! in tech!” rhetoric is just as hollow. It’s the same cult think and “only option” scenario Smart people need to stop towing the line and start making their neighbors lives better
- drharby 9y ago
  That's certainly one perspective. As a mil. Brat to an enlisted infantryman and former AF cgo, i got to see the policy design and implementation at scale. Many were very much dedicated to the mission, but many were also dedicated to greasing up thag contractor for a nice cushy connection when the punch out, were checking their boxes for a transition to their ivy league of choice, or pushing for highly competitive programs like weapons school or a PhD at MIT/Harvard. But at the end if the day, everyone is dedicated to doing what their function in the greater organization is. The role of the armed forces is to faithfully execute the mission handed to them by their civilian commanders. We are an arm of foreign police (DIME, Diplomacy, information, military, economic pressure). The POTUS has every bit of power to pull us out, and that is where the cynicism should be directed. The last secaf fought SO HARD to kill the mil-congressional-industrial complex, but there is too much inertia. The american military machine is a complexed component of American Society.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- nradov 9y ago
  Read the McSweeney's column "In These Deserts: War Stories From Afghanistan" written by a former Army officer. It's absolutely heartbreaking. https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/column-1-the-misunderstanding https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/column-1-the-misundersta...
- mythrwy 9y ago
  What I personally think he should have said was this: "Good question Son. Glad you asked. See, the US needs to maintain a military sphere of influence between the resource rich regions of the former Soviet Union and the heavily populated regions of South East Asia. Additionally we would like something of a base between an emerging China and Russia, Pakistan and Iran. You've played "Risk" right? It's a strategic thing see. The terrorism angle is all bullshit. That's just to sell the war to the public. There. Happy now? Great, go pack your bags."
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    I mentioned China in another comment and I think you're correct.
  - le-mark 9y ago
    I agree, leaders ought to be able to handle these hard questions and still inspire. I'd expand your "answer" to include "We know this is a tough mission which why we train hard. As leaders it's all of ours goal to get as many of you home alive as possible." Believe it or not, they do train with techniques to (for example) charge machine gun positions without losing anyone; grenades, covering fire, and leap frogging. Unfortunately people will die, but a well trained team can do a lot.
    - RUG3Y 9y ago
      We do train to do that but I never assumed that we'd ever not lose anyone in that kind of combat. I'm certain that casualties would be high while assaulting a machine gun nest. The interesting thing is that we haven't done that kind of fighting in many years, probably since Viet Nam. Now we patrol the streets of the third world and get hit by snipers.
otakucode 9y ago
They're probably reviewing the transcripts from J. Robert Oppenheimers 'security review' hearing in 1954.
arprocter 9y ago
Colby Buzzell[0] wrote an anonymous blog when he was in Iraq which later lead to a book - it's a great read [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell
hardlianotion 9y ago
The article draws a parallel between WW1 and the present conflict. Possibly the difference between than and now is the sheer number of people directly involved in the War. With great respect to those who have been affected by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it is possible for many people (especially here in Western Europe) to ignore the conflict altogether in ways that it was not possible back then.
- adventured 9y ago
  The reason the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone on as long as they have, is because even most Americans have been able to personally ignore what's going on, particularly the last five or so years of it (obviously in the years immediately after 9/11, the war & terror propaganda was so overwhelming it was nearly impossible to avoid). Around 140 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the last four years. Most Americans will ignore conflict at that scale if they're told it's beneficial. Although Trump managed to get a lot of traction out of pointing out the financial cost while directly contrasting that with America's various domestic financial problems (such as the need to spend vast sums on infrastructure). A large majority of the US population understands very well at this point that the US can't afford the perpetual war machine any longer; we'll see what the war machine does to counter that cultural shift.
asploder 9y ago
Well, Chelsea Manning just got out of prison for leaking the collateral murder tape.
slamdance 9y ago
a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..." It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture. Maybe because all of the 'major' conflicts prior to desert storm (C/WW1/2/K/V) were headed by the opposite political party than that mentioned. This is not to say other conflicts didn't happen under other parties as they obviously have. While the reasoning is sound insofar as the 'unmentioned' conflicts were fought primarily by draftees (again - politics?), it really gives no satisfactory reason, only conjecture and opinion (politics) on the current military actions - which SPANS political parties. Sadly, the introduction of politics into an article initially put forth as something about the "morality or war" says more about the intent of the author than the question the article brings up.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- danharaj 9y ago
  You want to talk about war without talking about politics? And do you think the level of politics where war is decided really care which party is in power at the time?
  - slamdance 9y ago
    no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one 'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable. My point is that this could have been a great article. The 'morality of war' is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel the need to defend them, and reply in kind and nothing is resolved, everyone else (who wanted an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.
    - forkLding 9y ago
      I think the author purposefully included politics in there, he probably didnt care if it was a decent article or not because he was more or less expressing his views. Sarcasm intended
MrZongle2 9y ago
I was in Iraq in 1991. My friends and I were astounded when we heard of the cease-fire; we could easily push towards Baghdad and take care of Saddam Hussein, who was clearly the Hitler of our time. "We'll be back in a decade" I thought, as it seemed as if we were leaving with our work unfinished. I was off by a couple of years, but in 2003 when we went back into Iraq to finally take care of Hussein, I was pleased. Of course, I had long since left the Army and now it was some other bunch of soldiers sitting in a tent. When they pulled Hussein out of his spider hole, I was thrilled. Justice, right? But Iraq didn't turn into a shining example of emerging democracy; it was a shit-show of tribal feuds, incompetence, waste, fraud and abuse that continued to kill decent American kids. The contemporary Iraqi WMDs -- the reason for our costly endeavor -- never really materialized (though their historical presence and usage against Kurds and Iranians was often downplayed). It became increasingly clear that all our involvement contributed to was a power vacuum in which something nastier could breed. Afghanistan, a seemingly more focused war due to the Taliban's sheltering and support of al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, at this point appears to be no more productive. Different tribes, different waste, fraud and abuse, different American kids killed so career politicians can check a box on their list of accomplishments. While I still respect men & women who join the military, my disdain for the "warrior worship" culture that has become the norm has grown. When I returned from the Gulf in 1991, I was amazed by such goodwill and support for the military; it was, I believe, a collective reaction to the infamous reception Vietnam-era soldiers received upon coming home. I would not want to deprive returning troops of the same feel-good experience, but at the same time I've grown weary of almost seventeen years of "thank you for our service" and the obligatory shots of troops abroad watching the sportsball game du jour, the abuse of the term "hero", and this somehow normalized condition of young men and women being sent to shithole third-world countries "to keep America safe". We're in the second decade of this madness, with no clear goals for victory or even to declare a statemate. As much as I love my country, at this point were there even a hint of a draft I would be the first to drive my teenage boys to the Canadian border -- a concept that would have astounded and enraged a younger me. Amidst the author's pious wailing and gnashing of teeth, the question "where are today’s skeptical veterans?" is posed. Well, here's one. And I'm far from alone. Most of us, I suspect, aren't vocal because of one simple reason: it will accomplish nothing. As with other causes, such as the environment, drug legalization, investment in national infrastructure, additional funding for scientific research, our political class turns a deaf ear to the populace. We the little people have our designated role: fly the flag of Team Pepsi or Team Coke, pay our taxes, and become enraged at each other while the aristocracy does what they will. We are largely jaded, and having assessed the impossibility of stopping the tide many of us merely do what we can to stay on higher ground and be cognizant of storm surges.
lexwraith 9y ago
I don't protest because I don't have time, nor would I think it's effective. People are just too busy for a war that is completely separated from them to care about it. I did care, at one point, but I too have been grinded down by both my experiences overseas and the people I served with. I enlisted in the USMC in 2005. 0311. Felt like I had been ready since I was 11 or 12. I went to Boot Camp, and then SOI. First taste of reality is bitter. My entire generation of Marines were called the 'X-Box' generation for our complacency and lack of earnest effort. Our ranks had swelled up to ~215K in the Marine Corps, and with it, a lower of the bar to join. That's just the way it was. Kids were already getting kicked out - hardship, drugs, etc. Still didn't mind - it felt like everyone was on the same page. We were crusaders to be, and our religion was America and deliverance was provided in the form of 5.56mm. Felt good, the narrative. Felt right. And then I joined the fleet, and that's when I realized I was a fucking idiot. This whole time, I had believed in something grand, some kind of romanticized view of war and life and how boys - no, men like me - could make a huge impact and different in the world against a nefarious enemy that struck out at all that was good. And you know how many people shared that view? Maybe 5, 10%. We were intelligent, idealistic, and had some 'reason' to be there. That is not the case for the vast, vast majority of people who enlist. It usually takes some life experience for you to join up, hit the fleet, and not be bewildered by it, and that was something virtually all of us, with the precious few best of us, lacked. When we got in country, the shock was amplified. The aimlessness/worthlessness of my generation was reflected in both wars. I was in Iraq twice, and both times, it seemed like our only job was to just maintain the security of Ramadi, and then Al Asad. That was it. Occasionally hunt bad guys, get blown up all the time, be bullet/bomb shields by proxy for a populace that wasn't 100% sure what it wanted. What exactly was the mission to stop foreign fighters from flooding into the country? Beats me. What exactly were we going to do to uproot and prop up a culture that is has no real concent of loving thy neighbor and working together to achieve some state of sovereignty? Beats me. How do we turn this society into a capital G Great society? How were riflemen supposed to achieve that? Would it even meet the objectives of the mission? Nah we thought, we should just keep handing out generators, heavy equipment, and speedballs (not the drug) to the populace. We were just enlisted men on the bottom, evoking smiles when we did good and hate when we accidentally kill some guy's brother because he ignored the red flag not to go down this road towards our base. Nothing changed, day in, day out. I knew quite a few devil dogs who were in OEF, Kandahar and Helmund, before + after Marjah offensive. The feeling was the same. What exactly, are we doing here? For an organization that prides itself on achieving objectives, even at great individual cost, we sure did a shit job at explaining what exactly our goals were to the operators. All this to say, what CAN I say that hasn't already been said? I don't need to 'protest' anything, because I don't hear a lot of people supporting our operations over there except for chicken hawks. I'm glad McCain's son, and John Kelly's children served with me. At least they put what is most dear to them on the line for what they believe. Can't say the same for most of modern day 'conservatives'. They have nothing on the line when they send people over, and that's the best I can protest, but what's the point? Nobody else seems to care either way - it seemed like the wiser of us had realized the whole thing was bullshit from the beginning, and now just don't care and have accepted it to be the way things are, sixteen years later. To top it off, we just have too much shit going on at home. Politics is really showing how bad democracy can get when the people themselves, the vessels of power, are fucking idiots and care more about feeling good than making good decisions for the future. I've got a housing crisis here, insurance crisis there, financial security crisis everywhere, so where can I fit in some good old protesting time? If I did, who would hear me? My old friends wouldn't want to hear it either. We just want some kind of peace of mind and happiness in our life, not dwell on the pointlessness of it all. We are the aimless generation, just trying to survive the journey through the minefield our forefathers had left us, day after day.
dforrestwilson 9y ago
Anyone who believes that a military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else outside the U.S. to fight a vaguely threatening idea of "terror" is a good idea should watch the new Ken Burns documentary about Vietnam.
guyromm 9y ago
The author implies that a citizen army would lessen the leadership's appetite for offensive overseas campaigns. Interestingly enough, the bulk of Israel's army to this day is composed of drafted 18 year olds, and despite that, the only time there was a major public outcry about the necessity of a military campaign was during the first Lebanon war (1982). that war was perceived by the public as a reckless regime-changing adventure by a particular general (Ariel Sharon). I assume that the IDF's decades long policing mission (=occupation) of the West Bank along with the periodical campaigns in Gaza & Lebanon do not generate an outcry of similar size, presumably due to the much stronger indoctrination level of the Israeli public, as opposed to that of the American. There is a general consensus around the absence of a less violent path to coexistence in the Middle East. to this day, I've been a supporter of reforming the IDF into a smaller professional army with the express purpose of making it more difficult for the state to apply foreign policy using force, with the added benefit of keeping unwilling citizens outside of the cycle of violence. The article, however, implies that the US has achieved the ability to increasingly "project power" by detaching its military apparatus from the society as a whole..
cwkoss 9y ago
This is why Tulsi Gabbard should be the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee.
- messick 9y ago
  Tulsi "Maybe Assad is Actually Good" Gabbard isn't going to do too well.
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    I don't think she ever said he was good, just that we don't have strong enough evidence that chemical weapons were used by Syria to use military force against Assad. Chemical weapons could have been used by rebels, or even used or planted by the CIA. If you believe we have solid proof that Assad ordered the use chemical weapons, I have some WMD's in Iraq to sell you...
ggm 9y ago
So.. if the US hadn't supplied the Mujahideen with stingers, and brought down the soviet backed government in Afghanistan.. none of this last 30 year nightmare would have happened? Cool. Think of all the amazing things we could have done with that surplus capital not going to bechtel...
genkimind 9y ago
Right here. Actually did a whole ten years, E-7. Once I had to be the mouthpiece I decided it was too in conflict with my core values and got out.
perilunar 9y ago
Is the title meant to be reference to Joe Haldeman's The Forever War? The article doesn't mention it, but it is capitalised suggestively near the end. Also, Haldeman's novel is widely regarded as a criticism of the Vietnam war, and the article does discuss the lack of literature critical of recent wars.
squozzer 9y ago
Two words - swift boat. Or maybe a few more, if you like Tom Cruise - Born On The Fourth of July.

164 points by bkohlmann 9y ago

After returning from Iraq, I was jaded. Young when I started, I thought we were doing a good thing. My idealism was stripped away pretty quickly. After being stateside for a while, there were rumors that our unit would be deploying to Afghanistan. A Lt. Colonel came and gave a presentation to the company about conditions there. During the Q.A., I stood up and asked, "Sir, what are we really doing there? For the life of me, I can't understand the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who attacked us on 9/11." To put it mildly, that did not go well. I exited the Corps after my first enlistment and I'm a bitter old veteran now. The point I want to make here is that the voice of integrity in the military are in the lowest ranks, and they leave as soon as they can, as the situation is intolerable for them. You don't rise in the ranks as a career officer or NCO if you don't believe in the mission.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Afghanistan actually made more sense than Iraq since the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. So when 9/11 happened, it made sense to go after them. Iraq never made sense on the other hand.
- baursak 9y ago
  More sense than Iraq, but less sense than Saudi Arabia.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    The sooner the rest of the world can get on to solar, wind, hydro, and modern atomic reactors (not the old dangerous kind, but properly supervised, maintained, and "waste reducing" ones that produce only a small bit of the really bad stuff) the sooner we can de-fund terrorists.
- walshemj 9y ago
  But they dropped the ball due to the obsession with Iraq and let him get away
- megous 9y ago
  Maybe on this surface level. But the intervention was and still is a nonsensical mess. Killing and locking up/torturing people left and right, whether pro or anti-taliban. Making new enemies from potentially pro-american tribes. Empowering some tribes against others, causing grief, resentment, rebellion and instability. Helping people with retribution against old rivals. The current conflict is already longer than the Soviet-Afghan war. Already 10x more civilians died than in 9/11. Really what's the purpose? It hardly can be justice at this point. In 2001 there were 45000 taliban fighters, US killed 60000, now there are around 60000 taliban. Clearly this is not a way to get rid of taliban, if that is the goal. I'm reading this at the moment: https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/0805091793 https://www.amazon.com/No-Good-Men-Among-Living/dp/080509179...
- chewz 9y ago
  Taliban and Al Qaeda had been at each other throats especially post 9/11. There has never been love lost between them. It had been personal decision of Mullah Omar to put islamic solidarity over realpolitik. Some clever policymaking - mixing military threats with financial incentive - could result in catching most of Al Qaeda possibly Bin-Laden included and avoid 16 year war. But B-1 coming with vengeance after mountain caves looked better on TV and as propaganda spin post 9/11.
zeveb 9y ago
> For the life of me, I can't understand the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who attacked us on 9/11. The Afghan government at the time offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, refusing to hand over its members after they had declared war on the U.S., attacked USS Cole, hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade CEnter & the Pentagon, killing thousands; the strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan was to demonstrate to every country that shielding those who commit acts of war against the United States is itself an act of war against the United States — and that being in a state of war with the United States is an unhealthy condition. What's the strategic purpose of staying in Afghanistan? 'You broke it, you fix it': having invaded, having destroyed the previous government, it is our responsibility to build a functioning government. Additionally, we desire to prevent the resumption of conditions similar to those which enabled the rise to power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place.
- the-dude 9y ago
  They did not refuse to hand over OBL, they wanted to see some proof. Which was of course a-OK for the US, they did not want OBL, they wanted to invade.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    I don't doubt the US was happy to go to war (and do doubt Bin Laden would have gone quietly if the Taliban had said "you're welcome to come and arrest him") but it's something of a stretch to imagine Afghanistan only wanted to "see some proof" even if that was one of their stated positions. The Taliban had spent the last three years refusing multiple countries' requests to extradite Bin Laden for other bombings and was lead by a man married to one of Bin Laden's daughters who compared the notion of handing over Bin Laden as a betrayal akin to the "end of Islam"
    - the-dude 9y ago
      Fair enough, I knew my position was 1 dimensional. Although you might be correct on all your points, it glosses over the fact there might actually be no proof at all.
peterwwillis 9y ago
"Sir, what are we really doing there?" Wading through the knee-deep shit and blood that is a political quagmire. But I can't imagine a man who is entrusted with inspiring people to go out and die for said quagmire is allowed to say that.
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  These infantry officers really buy their own bullshit. I've never met one who didn't. It's like religion - the cost of facing the music is just too high for some people. Cognitive dissonance etc.
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  Did you ever see a historical chart showing the supply of heroin coming out of Afghanistan? It stopped in 2001 but ever since the USA got there it's been growing steadily. Heroin is a huge business with many dark and powerful players.
AcerbicZero 9y ago
I had a similar experience, except in the Army "Reserves", in Iraq, and asking my "stupid" question to our Major instead of a Lt. Col. My rank didn't survive the deployment, as I was attached to another unit at the time and asking questions put me high on his shit list. I guess I was lucky my home unit was kind enough to return the stripes before my inglorious departure a few after that deployment. You are 100% right that folks who don't toe the line, don't make much past E4, although there are a few older NCO's who still maintain their integrity, and take care of their troops. I don't know if there is such a thing as a "just" war, but I do know we were not fighting one, and the military we have today is an overpriced facade of what it claims to be.
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  Well spoken. I made it to Sergeant - I was actually promoted my last week, which was a surprise to everyone. Apparently I was the only person in the company to complete all the prerequisites for promotion that quarter. A nice "fuck you" on my way out the door.
- le-mark 9y ago
  I think it's more of a situation where, no one at that level is going to change anything, so just talking about the absurdity is frowned upon just for the simple reason of negatively effecting moral, and negatively impacting your next promotion review. Independent thought? Bah! I found the Army to be highly political, everything anyone with rank did was intended to bolster their reviews in the eyes of their superiors. And being a hard charger, always on mission was an easy way to do it. I started to type some stories, but suffices to say, there's a lot of stupid stuff in the military.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    Spot on. I don't think the military is a place for people who think too hard. I don't want to make blanket judgements though because I met a few excellent people that earned my respect and I'm happy to know them.
    - 9y ago
0xbear 9y ago
Afghanistan I do sorta get why the US got involved. I think it’s impossible to “win” there, but I get the involvement. But Iraq was a completely retarded situation. Funding goddamn terrorists in Syria was retarded too. Regime change is retarded in general, aside from the dramatic events like WW2. It never works. Land war on the other end of the world serves only one purpose: just to show that the US government is a dangerous psychopath who will fuck you up at the slightest provocation, or sometimes even without one. Experts in geopolitics (ie George Friedman) call this “projecting power”. A secondary goal is to destabilize regions so that other countries are affected and they don’t consolidate their power and threaten the US interests. A good example are Georgia and Ukraine: crises were created out of nothing to keep a festering boil on Russia’s ass. It’s actually not a bad strategy, but it does tend to backfire, and when it does, it costs a ton of money.
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  It's also highly immoral. Destabilization and war in foreign lands results in devastating consequences for the civilian population. The US Government has a lot to answer for, and likely never will.
  - nsjdjdjri88 9y ago
    Because the people change. How do you hold the people of today responsible for actions of the dead? That’s another form of tyranny Lift the oppressed but don’t oppress the rest for the past. Now, I don’t mean losing your cars and multiple homes as oppression. Not defending unfettered materialism Thomas Jefferson advocated for resetting the Constitution and laws for the same reason. Why hold people on 2017 to the philosophy of 1776? Stop thinking of it as hold government responsible and think about holding the individuals responsible The former is used as a faceless abstraction to afford cover for doing the latter They aren’t Gods and should be put in their place as such
    - RUG3Y 9y ago
      Because our shenanigans in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and dozens of other countries happened so long ago...Is that your argument? The United States is directly responsible for worldwide violence just within the last decade. I'm not talking about Thomas Jefferson here. The government consists of individuals. George Bush. John McCain. Barack Obama. We'll likely never know who all of the people are that influence these terrible policies.
nsjdjdjri88 9y ago
> After returning from Iraq, I was jaded. Young when I started, I thought we were doing a good thing. My idealism was stripped away pretty quickly. My grandfather said the same about Korea. My step father said the same about Vietnam. My dad’s youngest brother said the same after Iraq 1. My brother said the same after Iraq 2. My nephew said the same after Afghanistan. Voices around world have been saying this forever. But too many feel it’s their only real option. The real fight is taking on this notion and making the social changes needed to make it so it’s the worst option Hint, it’s not neoliberalism and startup phone app companies going to get us there. Their “change/save the world! in tech!” rhetoric is just as hollow. It’s the same cult think and “only option” scenario Smart people need to stop towing the line and start making their neighbors lives better
drharby 9y ago
That's certainly one perspective. As a mil. Brat to an enlisted infantryman and former AF cgo, i got to see the policy design and implementation at scale. Many were very much dedicated to the mission, but many were also dedicated to greasing up thag contractor for a nice cushy connection when the punch out, were checking their boxes for a transition to their ivy league of choice, or pushing for highly competitive programs like weapons school or a PhD at MIT/Harvard. But at the end if the day, everyone is dedicated to doing what their function in the greater organization is. The role of the armed forces is to faithfully execute the mission handed to them by their civilian commanders. We are an arm of foreign police (DIME, Diplomacy, information, military, economic pressure). The POTUS has every bit of power to pull us out, and that is where the cynicism should be directed. The last secaf fought SO HARD to kill the mil-congressional-industrial complex, but there is too much inertia. The american military machine is a complexed component of American Society.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
nradov 9y ago
Read the McSweeney's column "In These Deserts: War Stories From Afghanistan" written by a former Army officer. It's absolutely heartbreaking. https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/column-1-the-misunderstanding https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/column-1-the-misundersta...
mythrwy 9y ago
What I personally think he should have said was this: "Good question Son. Glad you asked. See, the US needs to maintain a military sphere of influence between the resource rich regions of the former Soviet Union and the heavily populated regions of South East Asia. Additionally we would like something of a base between an emerging China and Russia, Pakistan and Iran. You've played "Risk" right? It's a strategic thing see. The terrorism angle is all bullshit. That's just to sell the war to the public. There. Happy now? Great, go pack your bags."
- RUG3Y 9y ago
  I mentioned China in another comment and I think you're correct.
- le-mark 9y ago
  I agree, leaders ought to be able to handle these hard questions and still inspire. I'd expand your "answer" to include "We know this is a tough mission which why we train hard. As leaders it's all of ours goal to get as many of you home alive as possible." Believe it or not, they do train with techniques to (for example) charge machine gun positions without losing anyone; grenades, covering fire, and leap frogging. Unfortunately people will die, but a well trained team can do a lot.
  - RUG3Y 9y ago
    We do train to do that but I never assumed that we'd ever not lose anyone in that kind of combat. I'm certain that casualties would be high while assaulting a machine gun nest. The interesting thing is that we haven't done that kind of fighting in many years, probably since Viet Nam. Now we patrol the streets of the third world and get hit by snipers.

otakucode 9y ago

They're probably reviewing the transcripts from J. Robert Oppenheimers 'security review' hearing in 1954.

arprocter 9y ago

Colby Buzzell[0] wrote an anonymous blog when he was in Iraq which later lead to a book - it's a great read [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell

hardlianotion 9y ago

The article draws a parallel between WW1 and the present conflict. Possibly the difference between than and now is the sheer number of people directly involved in the War. With great respect to those who have been affected by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it is possible for many people (especially here in Western Europe) to ignore the conflict altogether in ways that it was not possible back then.

adventured 9y ago
The reason the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone on as long as they have, is because even most Americans have been able to personally ignore what's going on, particularly the last five or so years of it (obviously in the years immediately after 9/11, the war & terror propaganda was so overwhelming it was nearly impossible to avoid). Around 140 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the last four years. Most Americans will ignore conflict at that scale if they're told it's beneficial. Although Trump managed to get a lot of traction out of pointing out the financial cost while directly contrasting that with America's various domestic financial problems (such as the need to spend vast sums on infrastructure). A large majority of the US population understands very well at this point that the US can't afford the perpetual war machine any longer; we'll see what the war machine does to counter that cultural shift.

asploder 9y ago

Well, Chelsea Manning just got out of prison for leaking the collateral murder tape.

slamdance 9y ago

a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..." It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture. Maybe because all of the 'major' conflicts prior to desert storm (C/WW1/2/K/V) were headed by the opposite political party than that mentioned. This is not to say other conflicts didn't happen under other parties as they obviously have. While the reasoning is sound insofar as the 'unmentioned' conflicts were fought primarily by draftees (again - politics?), it really gives no satisfactory reason, only conjecture and opinion (politics) on the current military actions - which SPANS political parties. Sadly, the introduction of politics into an article initially put forth as something about the "morality or war" says more about the intent of the author than the question the article brings up.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danharaj 9y ago
You want to talk about war without talking about politics? And do you think the level of politics where war is decided really care which party is in power at the time?
- slamdance 9y ago
  no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one 'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable. My point is that this could have been a great article. The 'morality of war' is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel the need to defend them, and reply in kind and nothing is resolved, everyone else (who wanted an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.
  - forkLding 9y ago
    I think the author purposefully included politics in there, he probably didnt care if it was a decent article or not because he was more or less expressing his views. Sarcasm intended

MrZongle2 9y ago

I was in Iraq in 1991. My friends and I were astounded when we heard of the cease-fire; we could easily push towards Baghdad and take care of Saddam Hussein, who was clearly the Hitler of our time. "We'll be back in a decade" I thought, as it seemed as if we were leaving with our work unfinished. I was off by a couple of years, but in 2003 when we went back into Iraq to finally take care of Hussein, I was pleased. Of course, I had long since left the Army and now it was some other bunch of soldiers sitting in a tent. When they pulled Hussein out of his spider hole, I was thrilled. Justice, right? But Iraq didn't turn into a shining example of emerging democracy; it was a shit-show of tribal feuds, incompetence, waste, fraud and abuse that continued to kill decent American kids. The contemporary Iraqi WMDs -- the reason for our costly endeavor -- never really materialized (though their historical presence and usage against Kurds and Iranians was often downplayed). It became increasingly clear that all our involvement contributed to was a power vacuum in which something nastier could breed. Afghanistan, a seemingly more focused war due to the Taliban's sheltering and support of al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, at this point appears to be no more productive. Different tribes, different waste, fraud and abuse, different American kids killed so career politicians can check a box on their list of accomplishments. While I still respect men & women who join the military, my disdain for the "warrior worship" culture that has become the norm has grown. When I returned from the Gulf in 1991, I was amazed by such goodwill and support for the military; it was, I believe, a collective reaction to the infamous reception Vietnam-era soldiers received upon coming home. I would not want to deprive returning troops of the same feel-good experience, but at the same time I've grown weary of almost seventeen years of "thank you for our service" and the obligatory shots of troops abroad watching the sportsball game du jour, the abuse of the term "hero", and this somehow normalized condition of young men and women being sent to shithole third-world countries "to keep America safe". We're in the second decade of this madness, with no clear goals for victory or even to declare a statemate. As much as I love my country, at this point were there even a hint of a draft I would be the first to drive my teenage boys to the Canadian border -- a concept that would have astounded and enraged a younger me. Amidst the author's pious wailing and gnashing of teeth, the question "where are today’s skeptical veterans?" is posed. Well, here's one. And I'm far from alone. Most of us, I suspect, aren't vocal because of one simple reason: it will accomplish nothing. As with other causes, such as the environment, drug legalization, investment in national infrastructure, additional funding for scientific research, our political class turns a deaf ear to the populace. We the little people have our designated role: fly the flag of Team Pepsi or Team Coke, pay our taxes, and become enraged at each other while the aristocracy does what they will. We are largely jaded, and having assessed the impossibility of stopping the tide many of us merely do what we can to stay on higher ground and be cognizant of storm surges.

lexwraith 9y ago

I don't protest because I don't have time, nor would I think it's effective. People are just too busy for a war that is completely separated from them to care about it. I did care, at one point, but I too have been grinded down by both my experiences overseas and the people I served with. I enlisted in the USMC in 2005. 0311. Felt like I had been ready since I was 11 or 12. I went to Boot Camp, and then SOI. First taste of reality is bitter. My entire generation of Marines were called the 'X-Box' generation for our complacency and lack of earnest effort. Our ranks had swelled up to ~215K in the Marine Corps, and with it, a lower of the bar to join. That's just the way it was. Kids were already getting kicked out - hardship, drugs, etc. Still didn't mind - it felt like everyone was on the same page. We were crusaders to be, and our religion was America and deliverance was provided in the form of 5.56mm. Felt good, the narrative. Felt right. And then I joined the fleet, and that's when I realized I was a fucking idiot. This whole time, I had believed in something grand, some kind of romanticized view of war and life and how boys - no, men like me - could make a huge impact and different in the world against a nefarious enemy that struck out at all that was good. And you know how many people shared that view? Maybe 5, 10%. We were intelligent, idealistic, and had some 'reason' to be there. That is not the case for the vast, vast majority of people who enlist. It usually takes some life experience for you to join up, hit the fleet, and not be bewildered by it, and that was something virtually all of us, with the precious few best of us, lacked. When we got in country, the shock was amplified. The aimlessness/worthlessness of my generation was reflected in both wars. I was in Iraq twice, and both times, it seemed like our only job was to just maintain the security of Ramadi, and then Al Asad. That was it. Occasionally hunt bad guys, get blown up all the time, be bullet/bomb shields by proxy for a populace that wasn't 100% sure what it wanted. What exactly was the mission to stop foreign fighters from flooding into the country? Beats me. What exactly were we going to do to uproot and prop up a culture that is has no real concent of loving thy neighbor and working together to achieve some state of sovereignty? Beats me. How do we turn this society into a capital G Great society? How were riflemen supposed to achieve that? Would it even meet the objectives of the mission? Nah we thought, we should just keep handing out generators, heavy equipment, and speedballs (not the drug) to the populace. We were just enlisted men on the bottom, evoking smiles when we did good and hate when we accidentally kill some guy's brother because he ignored the red flag not to go down this road towards our base. Nothing changed, day in, day out. I knew quite a few devil dogs who were in OEF, Kandahar and Helmund, before + after Marjah offensive. The feeling was the same. What exactly, are we doing here? For an organization that prides itself on achieving objectives, even at great individual cost, we sure did a shit job at explaining what exactly our goals were to the operators. All this to say, what CAN I say that hasn't already been said? I don't need to 'protest' anything, because I don't hear a lot of people supporting our operations over there except for chicken hawks. I'm glad McCain's son, and John Kelly's children served with me. At least they put what is most dear to them on the line for what they believe. Can't say the same for most of modern day 'conservatives'. They have nothing on the line when they send people over, and that's the best I can protest, but what's the point? Nobody else seems to care either way - it seemed like the wiser of us had realized the whole thing was bullshit from the beginning, and now just don't care and have accepted it to be the way things are, sixteen years later. To top it off, we just have too much shit going on at home. Politics is really showing how bad democracy can get when the people themselves, the vessels of power, are fucking idiots and care more about feeling good than making good decisions for the future. I've got a housing crisis here, insurance crisis there, financial security crisis everywhere, so where can I fit in some good old protesting time? If I did, who would hear me? My old friends wouldn't want to hear it either. We just want some kind of peace of mind and happiness in our life, not dwell on the pointlessness of it all. We are the aimless generation, just trying to survive the journey through the minefield our forefathers had left us, day after day.

dforrestwilson 9y ago

Anyone who believes that a military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else outside the U.S. to fight a vaguely threatening idea of "terror" is a good idea should watch the new Ken Burns documentary about Vietnam.

guyromm 9y ago

The author implies that a citizen army would lessen the leadership's appetite for offensive overseas campaigns. Interestingly enough, the bulk of Israel's army to this day is composed of drafted 18 year olds, and despite that, the only time there was a major public outcry about the necessity of a military campaign was during the first Lebanon war (1982). that war was perceived by the public as a reckless regime-changing adventure by a particular general (Ariel Sharon). I assume that the IDF's decades long policing mission (=occupation) of the West Bank along with the periodical campaigns in Gaza & Lebanon do not generate an outcry of similar size, presumably due to the much stronger indoctrination level of the Israeli public, as opposed to that of the American. There is a general consensus around the absence of a less violent path to coexistence in the Middle East. to this day, I've been a supporter of reforming the IDF into a smaller professional army with the express purpose of making it more difficult for the state to apply foreign policy using force, with the added benefit of keeping unwilling citizens outside of the cycle of violence. The article, however, implies that the US has achieved the ability to increasingly "project power" by detaching its military apparatus from the society as a whole..

cwkoss 9y ago

This is why Tulsi Gabbard should be the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee.

messick 9y ago
Tulsi "Maybe Assad is Actually Good" Gabbard isn't going to do too well.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  I don't think she ever said he was good, just that we don't have strong enough evidence that chemical weapons were used by Syria to use military force against Assad. Chemical weapons could have been used by rebels, or even used or planted by the CIA. If you believe we have solid proof that Assad ordered the use chemical weapons, I have some WMD's in Iraq to sell you...

ggm 9y ago

So.. if the US hadn't supplied the Mujahideen with stingers, and brought down the soviet backed government in Afghanistan.. none of this last 30 year nightmare would have happened? Cool. Think of all the amazing things we could have done with that surplus capital not going to bechtel...

genkimind 9y ago

Right here. Actually did a whole ten years, E-7. Once I had to be the mouthpiece I decided it was too in conflict with my core values and got out.

perilunar 9y ago

Is the title meant to be reference to Joe Haldeman's The Forever War? The article doesn't mention it, but it is capitalised suggestively near the end. Also, Haldeman's novel is widely regarded as a criticism of the Vietnam war, and the article does discuss the lack of literature critical of recent wars.

squozzer 9y ago

Two words - swift boat. Or maybe a few more, if you like Tom Cruise - Born On The Fourth of July.