Soldier deaths in Afganistan

[Gumdrop]

Dear Mitlov,
Recently sad to say there have been many soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Invariably these deaths are reported in the newspaper and the families sometimes state their sons ' died doing a job they loved.'My heart goes out to these families.At the same time I feel that the deaths of so many young men under such circumstances is tragic.In my opinion the deaths of these men is a waste of human life.I see very little point in supporting an Afghan govt. which is rotten to the core.Neither do I have time for politicians who lead us into wars which in some cases might well be considered illegal[Iraq].
THe soldiers display tremendous courage and fortitude and I for one support them but as far as Afghanistan is concerned I would not personally sacrifice any son /daughter for this third rate tribal ridden country.
The quicker we get out of this place and let the Afghans sort themselves out the better.

i

 

[CarrotMonster]

I think this is drifting off topic. Would you like me to request a split here to so you can continue this in the off topic area. I don't want to contaminate this thread out of respect.

The Bear.

 

[Catlover]

Yeah, that's certainly one way to derail a thread.

 

[psycomathesaurus]

Under any circumstances, the death of so many men and women, no matter what their nationality, is a tragedy.

I say nationality because U.S. soldiers are not the only ones dying for their country. Many people throughout the world are fighting every day against oppression and to have the freedom that we have and are fighting for.

We have this thing that's universally common between us, our humanity, and the sacrifices of any persons fighting for freedom and liberty is a good death.

We have been fortunate enough to have rights that people dream about in "tribal ridden, third world countries" and many other places in the world. Our humanity, to see people having equality, freedom and justice is what keeps us fighting these wars. If you don't think that we should bother, isn't inaction a form of action? That we have the ability to aid these people in obtaining freedom and if we choose not to help, we are a force that's keeping them under oppression.

We, the United States and the free countries of the world, who choose to be a force in helping these people have something to be proud of, and that is our humanity.

 

[eleda]

Well... that's one angle. A very patriotic one at that. One might even argue myopic.

Unfortunately I'm a bit more pessimistic than that. In my perspective the central and driving reason why America (and most other countries throughout history to present day) get into wars is greed and need. Wars are down to nothing more than the global struggle for power, influence and the raw resources and access to them. Proxy war is nothing new and if there is one place that is synonymous with the phrase 'proxy war' it'd be Afghanistan.

In many respects it's nothing more than The Great Game all over again. Only the players have slightly changed. The scenario is by and large the same. The goal is the same and the outcome will be the same. Alexander the Great is rolling in his grave, as is William Brydon, as are a great many Russian conscript soldiers and sadly... as will be a great many American GI's. Not to mention the other countries troops that are there as well that will end up dead.

Will there be significant change in Afghanistan by yet another intervention and meddling by western superpowers? To raise a famous and entirely accurate quote given the country and the people we're discussing.

'Not bloody likely!'

 

[htdvls101]

I would like to think that what we're doing out there has some form of righteousness, even if it's unintentional.

An example of that would have to be Iraq. Whether it was intentional or not, the removal of the previous regime is the best thing to have happened to Iraqies in a long, long time.

I have too much faith in humanity, and the myopic comment is only too true, but it keeps me happy that some good things do happen, even in war.

 

[YEAUHt]

Meh, to an extent I pretty much ignore debates around the reasons for it we're there now so why both fretting, and after a few minutes argueing it becomes clear to me a fair few of these people know even less than I do. My other view is we (UK) and others were part of the invading force so we have an obligation to stay. I'm also with Warrior in that whatever futility people think the war has I'm not going to think badly of displacing Hussein or the Taleban. The latter was also our fault so we do sort of deserve to be stuck there.
That all said the few soldiers I know dont really think much of the politics but are happy to be doing their job therefore they're dying, hopefully, doing what they love so its not a bad death. Given the choice I'd rather it was a firefight not an IED but hey.

 

[JamilM]

Hmm... not so sure that you can have righteousness without intent. So if the intent is lacking (ie. subverted by material gain, politicking, skullduggery etc.) can you really label it righteous?
I mean that genuinely as a question. I know my gut feeling on it... but I can honestly say that as a philosophical point I don't think I've ever given it much thought. An honest question to anyone who's mulled it over... Can you have righteous without intent? I dunno. Where's Canuck MA when you need him?



That one is debatable. Their country is in ruins... bombing are rampant. Museums looted... historical artifacts sold off on the black market. The settling of old scores are rampant. Rule by various petty and factional militias is by and large the norm.... as are IED's. Not so sure the Iraqi's would agree with you on that point. Not that I think it's a black and white situation if ever it was one. But I do think that hoping for the best happenstance and casual by products of putting in place puppet governments and then taking them out when they fall out of step is certainly not the best form of international intervention... and sure as hell makes for piss poor foreign policy.



Fairplay. I think the bold part is where we differ a substantial amount in our outlook.

 

[Playsuc3]

Hmm last I checked it was a forum open to conjecture. Nice attempt to call it fretting but I don't that's accurate.

Who exactly are you referring to? What is it you know that everyone else doesn't and exactly how have you come by it at 17 years of age and living Portsmouth?



lol... by any other name... neo-colonialism.



Well again... Just how much have either really been replaced? Yes Saddam is 6ft under but he didn't run the country by himself. I certainly took a whole lot more people than him and Chemical Ali to run the country. Ohhhh... that's right... look who put him and the Ba'ath party into power in the first place when it suited their own financial petro-interests. Funny that. Where was all the concern for the Iraqi people then? Where was all the concern for all the years he ran the country with the tacit approval of the western world and in particular Rumsfeld and all of his cronies?

As for the Taleban. It's an easy thing to say you're not against having them wiped off the map. Who wouldn't be. It's a no brainer. But is that really going to happen? If Alexander the Great couldn't conquer the same people... and the British Empire couldn't.... and the technologically laden and iron willed Soviet Union couldn't displace them... what real chance does the current lot have? I'm genuinely curious if you've thought this subject through.

And yet again... look who set the scene for the Taleban to roll into power? It doesn't take much to figure it out. They are the logical extension of being a pawn in the proxy war with the Soviet Union. Only that when the Soviets were booted out... both the second and first time... no one was willing to step in and help develop infrastructure with any real long term commitment. So is it any real surprise that the Taleban are so well armed... and giving everyone and their grandmother such a hard time on their own home turf?

Not in the slightest. Seriously guys... how much studying on this have you done? This is all pretty recent history. The last 50 years.



You're correct in that soldiers don't bet payed be conscientious objectors. The rank and file is generally not given to keeping tabs on the minutae of politics. However I find it rather casual to chalk it up to 'oh well they're soldiers so they will die in their profession'. Christ... that's not much of a consolation.

 

[candie23456]

I believe conflicts are a military for the most part are a manifestation of national interest and not a righteous cause. Al Qaida perpetrated the 9-11 attack. The national interest was to run them to ground. They were being sheltered by the Taliban regime who refused to give them up. The Taliban then became the enemy and were driven from power with the involvement of the Northern Alliance.

Then came the tricky part. What do you do next? A president who had previously expressed distaste for the idea of "nation building" had to cobble a national government using some pretty unsavory parts. Keep in mind Afghanistan has traditionally been the home of warlords and opium producers. So several years go by and the Taliban are not going anywhere and Al Qaida has moved to the frontier region of Pakistan and is essentially a shell of what it once was. So how do you gracefully extricate yourself from this situation? It will not be easy and placing deadlines on troop withdrawal only gives your adversary an idea of how long they need to outlast you? At the same time your local partners are still less than ideal. The strategy then becomes find other unsavory types you can work with and come to a negotiated solution so you can leave. The history of Afghanistan is indicative that you won't leave on your own terms. There will be a lot of carnage while the exit strategy comes into play.

On the other hand, Iraq was a strategic disaster. It was the folly of our previous president. Iraq was pretty much minding its own business. There was an oppressive regime to be sure but it posed no threat to anyone except for Iraqis. There was no reason to invade outside of what was contrived and evolved over time. Again, there is more nation building. The Iraqi people are free of the oppressive yoke of the Bathist regime but you now have terrorism and internal conflict. It is a subjective trade off. The greater consequence is that the neighbor of Iraq is now become a regional power. The one thing that the previos Iraqi regime did was to keep Iran in check. The Iranians are now a force to be reckoned with for the future of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, they're the ones that seem to be pursuing WMD technology not Iraq.

Please realize that this is a very macro strategic opinion expressed briefly and is not meant to offend anyone who has had personal involvement in either conflict.

 

[Invincible]

Accidentally pressed the back shortcut thing on the laptop pad and i need to go out so this is a cut short reply, I'll edit it with anything I missed out when I get back.


I did say it was my opinion and I dont remember saying no one else should look at the reasons and rights and wrongs. The bit saying "both" should say "bother" if you think I was aiming it at you


I did say "even less". Only knowledge I have is stuff on the net with articles and stuff, books, and talking to the couple people I know who have been on tours. Not much by any means. The people I say know less are the few I have had a discussion with this about namely my mother, brother, few guys at college, and a woman who wrote into my local paper with a letter that was just plain wrong. I shared snippets of that letter with Van Zandt and even he agreed with what I wrote to her in reply and I take an ex soldiers opinion over hers any day. Oh and a couple people on question time.

Most if not all of those people don't seem to fully understand that this isnt a war with our troops on one side of an open field and the Taleban on another. A few of them thought it was completely stupid we weren't steamrolling the place with tanks and didn't beleive me when i said the terrain was wrong and you cant exactly shell the crap out of a place filled with civilians. They did seem to struggle with the concept that the taleban are integrated into the population. Just my experience and I appreciate they're not representative of the public as a whole but it has made me less willing to engage in debate over it.


Have to admit I dont know what that means
Either way its a view I'm not really fussed if its an agreeable one

As for us putting them in power I mentioned that in my post. I wont say it was an innocent mistake and respective governments didnt do it for their own gain however.


I didn't say "oh they're soldiers, theirs not to question why and all that" what I said was the guys I've spoken to were happy to be doing they're job. I'd rather they died doing something they loved than being pushed kicking and screaming into a warzone. Optimistic probably though I accept that.

 

[yah_ra]

I came to that conclusion by thinking with my feelings and not my head.

It's just that Iraq is a special case for me. I haven't been able to see family until Saddam was taken out. When I first walked into Iraq and saw the physical and psychological damage done to most people, I realized the extent of oppression that these people went through.

When I asked people over there what they thought of about the removal of Saddam, they said that the ability to hold elections, to practice religious ideologies, and have jobs to support families and not starve is something that is worth the post-removal conflicts. Most do not want the U.S. to leave so they have some form of peace, but that's changing as the goverment seems to be becoming somewhat more secure.

The only Iraqi people that seem to hate the removal of Saddam are the ones who benefited from his regime, and in my book they're scum. The other's are the younger generation who hasn't felt the full-impact of oppression, Ignorance is bliss.

I remember a story where a man against the regime (he simply was outspoken against it) was dragged outside his house and shot infront of his family. The soldiers who shot him made his newly widowed wife pay for the bullet.

You're probably right Slip on the motivation behind the war, but righteousness whether unintentional or not, is still righteousness in my book. The act only maybe.