11 ms·

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 s

by 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.

by RUG3Y 9y ago

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.