I'm not so sure "win the war" is a possible notion. I think we're playing a finite game against a player playing an infinite game.

We may have to defend ourselves, and freedom, forever. Get used to it.

O-Trap;1868131 wrote:I'm not so sure "win the war" is a possible notion. I think we're playing a finite game against a player playing an infinite game.

Pretty much this. Become less dependent on oil/Middle East, and gtfo of the Middle East.

QuakerOats;1868134 wrote:We may have to defend ourselves, and freedom, forever. Get used to it.

I'm okay with that.

Let me know when we start.

1776

QuakerOats;1868142 wrote:1776

Wow. Someone should tell they Brits they're supposed to still be trying to occupy us. They seem to have missed the memo.

Went over your head I guess.

How do you even win a ideological/religious war nowdays? Whether the US puts troops into or out of place (middle east) its not going to make people more religious or less religious.
I think the ideology has to change first... because the ideology is the religion is the powers that be... and there is some progress being made. Not necessarily by anyone in the US, but people in the UK, Australia, etc. Imams starting to speak out (yes, even if they have to run for cover afterwards), Sikhs standing up and speaking out, open debates between the religiously devout and the secular, etc. THAT, imo, is what is going to eventually "win". You have to convince people that there is a different way to do things, that takes long periods of time. A people have to come to terms with that gradually, on their own terms.
Sure, I get pissed when terror attacks happen here, just like everybody else. The first instinct is to eradicate the cockroaches. But then you have to think again and realize that it is an impossible thing to do.

I saw a show once where Maajid Nawaz asked an imam what his punishment would be if it was up to the imam. It was like pulling teeth to get the imam to answer but he eventually said that Maajid would need to be killed. So, the extremely devout imams have a hard time admitting what their valued beliefs are. That's the beginning, I think, to recognizing some awkwardness. That seed has been planted but it needs to be planted all over. Just like the Christianity Enlightenment happened in the west, the same kind of enlightenment needs to happen in the middle east and elsewhere, too. It will happen. Not in our lifetimes, IMO, but there will be substantial progress at least.

Back to Trump: Do you think that he'll change the rules of engagement? Should he?

The problem with places like Afghanistan is that we're trying to change a dynamic that has existed long before there ever was a USA. We are never going to successfully stop tribal rivalries that go back centuries. Killing terrorists as we find them is fine, but as we see, it doesn't stop terrorism. Despite Trump's promoting the Pershing urban legend of shooting jihadis with pig soaked bullets to make a point, these guys don't subscribe to those kinds of values.

Bush totally and completely f-ed up all of this stuff in Afghanistan and Iraq. His two predecessors are left holding the bag of steaming dung trying to fix it. It seems like Trump is being drawn into the exact same trap that has plagued world leaders since the beginning of time - "Even though this has been a complete failure every other time it's been tried, this time it will be different."

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1868165 wrote:The problem with places like Afghanistan is that we're trying to change a dynamic that has existed long before there ever was a USA. We are never going to successfully stop tribal rivalries that go back centuries. Killing terrorists as we find them is fine, but as we see, it doesn't stop terrorism. Despite Trump's promoting the Pershing urban legend of shooting jihadis with pig soaked bullets to make a point, these guys don't subscribe to those kinds of values.

Tribal persecutions over religion has always happened, yep. Not just in places like Afghanistan but all over Europe. They eventually got their shit together and now live in basic harmony regardless of their religion. For example in the UK alone, Cromwell's tactics didn't last and neither did Henry VIII. People are no longer jailed or killed because they are Catholics or Protestants.
The problem is look how long it took to settle all that down. I have a feeling that's the kind of timeline we're going to face in modernity.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1868165 wrote:Bush totally and completely f-ed up all of this stuff in Afghanistan and Iraq. His two predecessors are left holding the bag of steaming dung trying to fix it. It seems like Trump is being drawn into the exact same trap that has plagued world leaders since the beginning of time - "Even though this has been a complete failure every other time it's been tried, this time it will be different."

Well, that problem happened after a crisis, but the original problem goes way back before Clinton, before Reagan even.

QuakerOats;1868153 wrote:Went over your head I guess.

Not at all. Just pointing out that your "1776" answer was nonsense.

We're not presently fighting for our freedom or independence, and we haven't been for some time.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1868165 wrote:The problem with places like Afghanistan is that we're trying to change a dynamic that has existed long before there ever was a USA. We are never going to successfully stop tribal rivalries that go back centuries. Killing terrorists as we find them is fine, but as we see, it doesn't stop terrorism. Despite Trump's promoting the Pershing urban legend of shooting jihadis with pig soaked bullets to make a point, these guys don't subscribe to those kinds of values.

Bush totally and completely f-ed up all of this stuff in Afghanistan and Iraq. His two predecessors are left holding the bag of steaming dung trying to fix it. It seems like Trump is being drawn into the exact same trap that has plagued world leaders since the beginning of time - "Even though this has been a complete failure every other time it's been tried, this time it will be different."

Frankly, I'd argue that our military philosophy that resulted from the Cold War informed Bush's decisions while in office. As such, while Bush is certainly not without blame, I'd argue that the trouble started plenty before him.

O-Trap;1868172 wrote:Not at all. Just pointing out that your "1776" answer was nonsense.

We're not presently fighting for our freedom or independence, and we haven't been for some time.

Yes, we are. Freedom is not something that is in the bloodline, handed down from generation to generation. It can be wiped out in less than one generation unless it is defended. Good God man.

QuakerOats;1868179 wrote:Yes, we are. Freedom is not something that is in the bloodline, handed down from generation to generation. It can be wiped out in less than one generation unless it is defended. Good God man.

This is a false dichotomy: that freedom is either inborn or requires us to constantly be in military conflict. I assume you can see this.

I would even argue that if we think we need to constantly be in military conflict, then our need to be in conflict is a relinquishing of our own liberty.

What current enemy fits these three criteria:
(a) They have the desire to remove American liberty by force.
(b) They have the ability to remove American liberty by force.
(c) They are attacking American soil by force in order to take away the people's liberty.

If you cannot come up with a clear, finite answer, then no, we're not currently in any conflict to defend our freedoms. You don't get to go to the other guy's yard, punch him in the face, and then claim it was self-defense, even if he doesn't like you.

O-Trap;1868187 wrote:This is a false dichotomy: that freedom is either inborn or requires us to constantly be in military conflict. I assume you can see this.

I would even argue that if we think we need to constantly be in military conflict, then our need to be in conflict is a relinquishing of our own liberty.

What current enemy fits these three criteria:
(a) They have the desire to remove American liberty by force.
(b) They have the ability to remove American liberty by force.
(c) They are attacking American soil by force in order to take away the people's liberty.

If you cannot come up with a clear, finite answer, then no, we're not currently in any conflict to defend our freedoms. You don't get to go to the other guy's yard, punch him in the face, and then claim it was self-defense, even if he doesn't like you.

Good post

O-Trap;1868187 wrote:This is a false dichotomy: that freedom is either inborn or requires us to constantly be in military conflict. I assume you can see this.

Inaccurate conclusion.




Constant vigilance.

QuakerOats;1868191 wrote:Inaccurate conclusion.




Constant vigilance.

Vigilance requires unwavering observation. Not military action.

What we're engaged in is not unwavering observation.

Lol at the trump rally...." CNN sucks" chant while in am watching CNN.

O-Trap;1868173 wrote:Frankly, I'd argue that our military philosophy that resulted from the Cold War informed Bush's decisions while in office. As such, while Bush is certainly not without blame, I'd argue that the trouble started plenty before him.

The biggest issue I see, and I applaud the decision to send more troops, is there is a huge difference between Nations at war and Nations at war vs an ideology/group that will simply replace a leader with another when he is dead and will be ongoing.

We tried to get into nation building and that isn't working. You can topple a leader like Saddam but to force on a democracy with so many tribal and religious divisions it really isn't a working proposition.

It is a very difficult situation. First Gulf War..they got them to surrender. Leave Kuwait and for the most part it was over. The second one, a possible trumped up WMD war ( I personally believe he shipped them elsewhere and or buried them in the desert) they toppled the Iraqi forces, killed the leader but there was absolutely nothing to take the central government's place.

That is a huge issue in nations that have dictators...the opposing "parties" do not have the capacity to take over and secure a nation. If the US was attacked tomorrow, defeated, surrendered and the President to step down there is a clear path of whom would take over. Nations like Iraq didn't have that, terrorist troops like AQ, Taliban, Al Shabaab....that isn't in their bloodlines. Another person takes over and the group moves on.


In previous wars you could topple a countries regime, they surrender, and the war is over. The losing countries went on with the treaties signed.

We aren't at war with Afghanistan. We aren't at war right now with Iraq. We aren't at war with Somalia. We aren't at war with Yemen. We are war with groups within the countries that has an ideology that will not waiver and by nature wont surrender. When leaders are dead, or defect (like recently with Al Shabaab in Somalia) there is another person to carry on the operations.

Even in a so called leader in ISIS, Al Shabaab, AQ, Taliban would 'surrender' like we see in wars between nations there will still be a large faction of the groups that wont abide by it and it will carry on.

Nation vs Nation wars are much more bloodier with more casualties and widespread death and destruction, but there is typically an end state where a surrender is done and both sides move on.

CenterBHSFan;1868163 wrote:How do you even win a ideological/religious war nowdays? Whether the US puts troops into or out of place (middle east) its not going to make people more religious or less religious.
I think the ideology has to change first... because the ideology is the religion is the powers that be... and there is some progress being made. Not necessarily by anyone in the US, but people in the UK, Australia, etc. Imams starting to speak out (yes, even if they have to run for cover afterwards), Sikhs standing up and speaking out, open debates between the religiously devout and the secular, etc. THAT, imo, is what is going to eventually "win". You have to convince people that there is a different way to do things, that takes long periods of time. A people have to come to terms with that gradually, on their own terms.
Sure, I get pissed when terror attacks happen here, just like everybody else. The first instinct is to eradicate the cockroaches. But then you have to think again and realize that it is an impossible thing to do.

I saw a show once where Maajid Nawaz asked an imam what his punishment would be if it was up to the imam. It was like pulling teeth to get the imam to answer but he eventually said that Maajid would need to be killed. So, the extremely devout imams have a hard time admitting what their valued beliefs are. That's the beginning, I think, to recognizing some awkwardness. That seed has been planted but it needs to be planted all over. Just like the Christianity Enlightenment happened in the west, the same kind of enlightenment needs to happen in the middle east and elsewhere, too. It will happen. Not in our lifetimes, IMO, but there will be substantial progress at least.

Back to Trump: Do you think that he'll change the rules of engagement? Should he?

ROE are put into place as a guideline and to protect the soldier so they are necessary, but oftentimes extremely restrictive and hinders the mission. I ve brought it up before comparing it to police shootings, but often times one is not allowed to fire unless first fired upon. I realize its diff with police as its much closer quarters but when they fire and kill someone who doesn't even have a weapon they need to change their ROE to at least see a weapon, but that is a diff discussion for a diff team.

To be as vague as possible per operational security......I sat in a briefing where we were told our ROE was even if rounds were hitting where we were protecting/guarding we still were not allowed to fire unless we were certain they shots were intended for us and not just rival groups firing at one another. So....rounds could be hitting the wall right below you but if you cannot make sure they were being fired at YOU then you were not permitted to return.

They can be....very restrictive.

thavoice;1868300 wrote:[/B]To be as vague as possible per operational security......I sat in a briefing where we were told our ROE was even if rounds were hitting where we were protecting/guarding we still were not allowed to fire unless we were certain they shots were intended for us and not just rival groups firing at one another. So....rounds could be hitting the wall right below you but if you cannot make sure they were being fired at YOU then you were not permitted to return.

They can be....very restrictive.

yikes .....when did that policy start?

QuakerOats;1868350 wrote:yikes .....when did that policy start?

this is just for a certain response team I am on. The example given by JAG came from 2 years ago.

Still in many instances you cannot fire until fired upon which puts troops in a real bind,

The enemies know the ROE thst are follow by the US and take advantage of it. Shoot at ya, out their weapon down and run away and many times there is nothing you can do about it

Sounds like something obama would implement ............no?

QuakerOats;1868365 wrote:Sounds like something obama would implement ............no?

So how is this for am rule of engagement. Iran is buzzing ships with drones including aircraft carriers.
1. Try to contact operator of drone.
2. Sound horn.
3. Shoot flares.
4. Warning shots.
5. Scramble a helo to shadow drone to see if it may be hostile.


Then and only then can something legit be done. By that time if they have hostile intent they could easily drop their ordinance.

So the enemy drones can just fly around us ships anddo surveillance until all those steps are completed....and even after they have aircraft to check I out and if they don't have ordinance they cannot do anything but let it spy

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2017/08/25/trump-the-future-democrat-n2373210

I have to agree with Michael Reagan. I never considered President Trump a true Republican. He is a third party candidate that got nominated by the Republican party and if he ran as a Democrat he would have easily beaten Hillary.