In other news....Follow

Man, that sounds funny now, but maybe this is where Putin's Stalin-kissing is headed.

The best we could do would to impose some semblance of stability while we're there. In order to do even just that, we'd need to commit tens of thousands of extra troops, easily. The Western death toll of soldiers would be higher than it is now, and public opinion would turn really quickly. And even then, we won't have killed the Talibans off, we will have made them retreat the Pakistan.

But even that is too optimistic. If the death toll rose only a little bit, most of the Western countries there would withdraw. And if we don't commit more troops, if we keep using drones and air power, then we're even more fucked because whatever's left of the local population not already against us will definitely turn.

We can't "win". We can't win with our level of troops, we can't win with Pakistan the way it is, and we can't win with public opinion the way it is. And even if we did win, it would only be temporary. I don't think we could even do "an Iraq" in Afghanistan.



No, mine's in law, though I did do economics at the French equivalent of the A-levels.

Afghan public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of NATO. Now that Afghanistan is the center stage again, I think the Taliban's going to find it increasingly difficult to get help from the local population - if they're helping out of fear, then they will stop helping if the Taliban continues to be pushed back. A change of tactics (being less hasty to leave an area behind) would ensure this, although we might have to wait on more Afghan troops to be trained if congress won't approve additional US troops.

Will NATO withdraw troops? Not any time soon, I think. Cameron made it clear he's for increasing troops in Afghanistan, and why would he renege on this when Labour has castrated itself and tossed its bleeding ***** into the heart of the sun? He's free to play age of empires all he wants. While congress will probably make anything more than the reallocation of troops impossible, I see no sign that Obama intends to withdraw troops either. The Canadians are withdrawing by 2011 but frankly, who cares? No one else seems about to crack - Germany's defence minister suggested they could be there for a decade or so. It's difficult to predict, though. Maybe you're right.

Pakistan is the really unpredictable element, though. Their army is awful at counterinsurgency even when it tries to effect it, but support for the Taliban among the populace is pretty low. It's Pakistan's military that's unwilling to take real action. But that could easily change, especially if we can beat the Taliban back into their borders entirely and make a few incursions into Pakistan.

I guess we have different victory conditions, because achieving stability such as that in Iraq ( and having to keep a smallish garrison of 40-20,000 troops (decreasing over time) in Afghanistan for a decade after to maintain stability would be a victory in my mind.



Did you find Law to be interesting? Did you plan on being a solicitor/barrister when you took it? What do you do now? How many people do you know with ginger hair? How many brooms do you own?

...What are you wearing?

What? That study doesn't say anything about support for international troops or NATO. Where in the article you cited does it even imply that?



Where are you getting this information that the Taliban isn't supported by the general populace of Pakistan? Do you mean the country as a whole? Because that would matter very little when their support is high on the border with Afghanistan where they are all camped out.

Yes but it pays the bill$ in my household (quite nicely, really) My spouse is not military. His experience, he encounters far more Europeans than Americans in Afghanistan. (He really enjoys it to, apparently they are a great group to be around)

Actually, any stupid conflict has the potential to offer my spouse the ability to make a "stupid" amount of money and frankly, I'm fine with it so long as he is happy. (I am really enjoying the photos that he has been sending of the ruins of Alexander the Great's castle & fort.) Also from a social sciences standpoint, he has been providing me with fascinating pictures of the everyday life there.







With all the places he can accept a contract, I know that there are far more conflicts going on that what the media mentions, some even in our own "backyard". Clearly, a major industry for our country throughout the years, is conflict.

As long as they just shut up and go away. It's like listening to all the sports anchors talking about Brett Favre every goddam year.

dehumanization at its finest. Sad but true, war is a profitable business. The more I've learned about the "industry" the more I realize, noone is in it to 'save" anything.

I also believe that it is a job field best suited for functional psychopaths. ;)

probably the best explanation of events.

Sometimes focusing on the small more shallow aspects makes the larger more bitter ones a little more tolerable.

I saw a cool picture of a camel "train' carrying what I thought was hay....apparently I have no idea what opium looks like.

It's not a bad thing, if your switch gets stuck in that position. In fact, it's a pretty rad thing.

You're right, we are different. I would be heart sore and constantly worried if my husband were gone for years in a war torn country. It takes all kinds, you're certainly stronger than me in that regard.

I didn't know your husband was a contractor. Until this thread, I thought he was still in the military, for some reason, and I have never said nor thought that all contractors do is rape and kill people. I have no idea where that came from, and I think it was just a joke. But I hope you don't think I feel that way.

I'm glad your husband is in a position to help the economy and rebuild stuff over there, but your post sounded like you were glad to take advantage of any conflict since it lined your pockets. That makes me sad. It's like an article my husband sent me on Humira, the drug I'm currently taking. They were proud to be one of the biggest drugs used for arthritis and Crohn's disease, and they "foresee large profits ahead in the coming years." Which sounds suspiciously like they are looking forward to people getting ill.

Suspicious? There's nothing merely suspicious about that. Of course they are happy when people are sick

They couldn't recoup their rnd costs if they cured everyone. Industrial medicine's a self-destroying business, and so is the military. If you do the job too well, then you're out of one, and probably forever.

Yep, the whole conflict of interest thing essentially built into the corporate substructure is annoying at best. At worst a lot of people end up unnecessarily dead.

Oh well, making tools to kill people faster and cheaper will still be lucrative.

Try living in WI. (Obviously don't do that, I wouldn't legitimately recommend it to anyone.)



Edited, Sep 13th 2009 4:42pm by bsphil