Afehganistan strategy

Printable View

10-27-2009
Mario F.

Afehganistan strategy

How does the USA currently sees the war in Afghanistan in terms of the international cooperation?

I'm a very critic of EU lack of true commitment to this war (and frankly I'm ashamed), which is in my opinion the most important war in the turn of the century. I fear USA risks loosing this war and yet I'm appalled at the complete absence of news concerning a clear political commitment on behalf of European countries.

It seems to me, despite NATO presence in the field, USA is doing this pretty much alone in the strategic and political playground. I hear of no meeting between states, no formal representation, nothing. Just USA, NATO and a big hot potato that seems is going to blow in Obama's hands and everyone around here will wash theirs of it.
10-27-2009
maxorator

Actually quite many European countries have sent troops to Afghanistan. Not as many as the US maybe, but it's still something. I'm wondering what news you are expecting though - US makes the strategy, EU helps. If they would be both heavily involved in strategy, then deciding anything would take double the time and could cause serious disputes.

According to this document (23rd of July, 2009), the amount of troops in Afghanistan (as NATO troops) per 1 million people by country should be around this:

Code:

United Kingdom 146.02 | Slovakia 42.49 Denmark 126.82 | Slovenia 39.08 Estonia 111.91 | New Zealand 36.97 Netherlands 106.89 | Czech Republic 32.45 Norway 100.17 | Hungary 30.90 United States 97.30 | Iceland 25.06 Republic of Macedonia 80.54 | Finland 20.57 Canada 79.82 | Luxembourg 18.24 Latvia 73.20 | Spain 16.97 Croatia 66.52 | Greece 12.88 Bulgaria 61.79 | Turkey 10.21 Lithuania 59.70 | Azerbaijan 10.12 Poland 52.49 | Portugal 8.47 Australia 49.65 | United Arab Emirates 5.44 Germany 49.39 | Singapore 1.60 France 48.56 | Ireland 1.57 Romania 47.68 | Jordan 1.11 Belgium 47.42 | Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.53 Italy 46.46 | Austria 0.36 Sweden 46.16 | Georgia 0.23 Albania 44.16 | Ukraine 0.22

US also has non-NATO forces there (both in total about 78000(corrected)), so the real value for US should be around 254.

By the way, Estonia doubled the number of troops, so the new value for it will be around 215. :D
10-27-2009
SlyMaelstrom

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxorator

US also has non-NATO forces there (both in total about 60000?), so the real value for US should be around 200.

By the way, Estonia doubled the number of troops, so the new value for it will be around 215. :D

The US has, including the 30,000 in the ISAF about 78,000 troops in Afghanistan. That represents about 254 per million citizens (exceeded currently only by the UK in per capita numbers) and excludes the 120,000 on that other country that borders Iran who are only a signature and a four hour helicopter ride away from being in Afghanistan if they needed to be. The US forces represent about 64% of what's in Afghanistan excluding their local forces. The United Kingdom represents another 14-15%. The fact is, there are a whole lot of disappointing numbers on that list from a lot of very, very big countries in terms of influence in Europe. All of which insist that something needs to be done in the area... they just don't want to pony up the man power, or more importantly, the dough. Strategy and manpower are two different things.
10-27-2009
maxorator

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

The US has, including the 30,000 in the ISAF about 78,000 troops in Afghanistan.

It is sometimes annoying to try and find correct figures from news articles. Thanks for the correction. :)

It's interesting that Germany, France and Italy all have between 45 and 50 ISAF troops per million citizens.
10-27-2009
SlyMaelstrom

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxorator

It is sometimes annoying to try and find correct figures from news articles. Thanks for the correction. :)

It's interesting that Germany, France and Italy all have between 45 and 50 ISAF troops per million citizens.

Well... don't take my numbers as a fact... I don't send the guys out there... my information is just what I can get for the internet.
10-27-2009
Mario F.

That table indeed confirms my concerns. Were it given out of context and I would mistake that for some list of country presence in a peace-keeping scenario like Bosnia. It's definitely not the list you would expect as the result of an open and clear political commitment to the situation in Afghanistan.

As always there's a clear European look-the-other-way attitude. This ........es me off greatly because when it comes the time to rightfully criticize USA for some reason, I have to hear all sorts of accusations that while totally unrelated to the matter at that time, are no less true.

I'm however curious as to whether this has been a matter of debate over there or not.
10-27-2009
VirtualAce

I'm amazed by the fact that if one President wants to go to Afghanistan they are a war monger but if another one wants to go they win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Very odd.
10-27-2009
SlyMaelstrom

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I'm however curious as to whether this has been a matter of debate over there or not.

Debate about what? Europe's lack of involvement? We're pretty used to it by now... Europe has a history of sitting back and judging while others do the heavy lifting. Not to blame the people of Europe or even any individual country... it's just the sad effect of 50 or so countries caught in bureaucratic deadlock by trying to act as one unit while still trying to maintain their own individual economic status. It's like a bunch of college kids hovering over a pint glass full of what they were able to funnel off of the bar top after last call all pointing to each other saying "You do it... no you do it..."
10-27-2009
Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

I'm amazed by the fact that if one President wants to go to Afghanistan they are a war monger but if another one wants to go they win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Afghanistan was never a point of discord. Iraq was.
10-27-2009
VirtualAce

Quote:

Afghanistan was never a point of discord. Iraq was.

In the later portions of the previous administration everything was a point of discord.
10-27-2009
Daved

>> In the later portions of the previous administration everything was a point of discord.

Sure, but there were reasons for that. If Bush was considered a war monger it was because he invaded Iraq preemptively (and under false pretenses at that). He was criticized for Afghanistan only a little, and most of that criticism was for largely ignoring that war in favor of Iraq.

So, there is nothing odd about how the previous administration was considered war mongers and the current one is not.
10-27-2009
Daved

As to the original topic, I've often wondered why there wasn't more of an attempt to get other countries involved in the war in Afghanistan. It seemed they were actively engaged at the outset, but perhaps the "go it alone" strategy on Iraq soured many to the idea of helping out the U.S. Either that or it just changed the way the realities were characterized in our national discourse.

I'd like to see more international involvement, especially with regards to the nation building and security that needs to be done but lends itself to an unending involvement that the U.S. doesn't want by itself. If we could get more help from other countries, we could focus on Al-Qaeda and try to actually finish what started the war in the first place.
10-28-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

It's definitely not the list you would expect as the result of an open and clear political commitment to the situation in Afghanistan.

Paying lip service to commitment, and actually being committed are two different things. Europe isn't committed to maintaining stability in the region, but it's not popular to say they aren't committed and lying costs nothing.

Personally, I think its great that Europe isn't sticking its nose into Afghanistan, They would just screw things up with their assumptions and hyperbole.
10-28-2009
zacs7

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Debate about what? Europe's lack of involvement? We're pretty used to it by now... Europe has a history of sitting back and judging while others do the heavy lifting.

I agree, however take a big fat look at World War Two. Although you could argue that it was Europe's problem.

I don't see Afghanistan as winnable by conventional means, just as all other similar wars/conflicts have failed. That being said, go coalition :). I'm just sad Australia isn't doing more.

How about the involvement of "private security contractors"? Seems like the business to be in.
10-28-2009
Sebastiani

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

I'm amazed by the fact that if one President wants to go to Afghanistan they are a war monger but if another one wants to go they win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Very odd.

Ouch. :D

Well, without going into the possible roots of the war, I do think that there needs to be a greater sense of urgency among the leadership. My advice would simply be to quickly reorganize and then move in swiftly for a decisive battle.

To quote Sun Tzu:

"Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been associated with long delays"

Beats milling around, anyway.
10-28-2009
maxorator

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Personally, I think its great that Europe isn't sticking its nose into Afghanistan, They would just screw things up with their assumptions and hyperbole.

That's just mean.
10-28-2009
Mario F.

But deserved.

I'm not thinking military support, but political support or influence has been an area were we, as a union of states, have mostly been a sad joke. Sly pretty much said it when he mentioned the difficulty we have to come along with a common position on about any matter.

We don't need to go to far to see it. Just think of EU attempts at mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. EU has very little political influence and risks loosing even more of it as the emerging economies start establishing themselves in the political arena. I'm thinking countries like India or Brazil who have all the conditions to become influential countries.

EU institutions are complex, slow and too permeable to veto mechanisms. The recent Lisbon Treaty will help some of this (by removing some of the voting power from smaller states), but really there's no solution to it. Unless... one day we become a federation.

And yet, more could be done on this particular issue of the Afghan war. There's more to our lack of commitment in this war in human and material resources than simply a lack of internal agreement. It's a fact the Iraqi war burned all European politicians that decided to participate. None is in power anymore and all have been heavily criticized during the whole process. Some even faced humiliating defeats on the elections that followed. It's also a fact that the Europe population is traditionally less open to conflict resolution through military action. But there is not today, and there never was in the past, an active anti-Afghan war movement in Europe. The populations have generally accepted this war effort.

Instead, it's my view that European politicians are weakened and European politics became shallow and devoid of the true power (on this case, the ability to take action and sustain the consequences). We have been electing our leaders on small margins, forcing them to on most cases form coalition governments with other parties. Even on those cases where a de facto majority has emerged from some election, our typical political organizations and institutions do not favor new strong and influential measures. We have a much wider political specter and in most countries parties run up for elections against 10 or more other parties which, while not in position to ever take the seat, still have the power to spread votes. It's very common in Europe for parties who became in 3rd or 4th place to still take 10% or more of the total votes. A majority government can easily fall the next elections, if it risks too much. Majority != Ruling power. Not anymore.

Meanwhile, Europe has also been lacking... heroes and highly charismatic leaders for many, many years now. As we slowly sink into a political stagnancy and boredom with pretty much the same faces all the time, same politics and the same institutional mechanisms that dissociate the general population from politics, we more and more reduce the possibilities of those heroes to emerge. Governments that can make really hard decisions and still convince their population of their necessity are becoming extinct around here.

And the EU complex institutional model only worsened it. Do you know how to contact your representative in the European parliament? Of course you don't. Because in fact, you can't.
10-28-2009
SlyMaelstrom

Quote:

Originally Posted by zacs7

I agree, however take a big fat look at World War Two. Although you could argue that it was Europe's problem.

It was Europe's problem until we got bombed and Russia (which for this argument I won't consider European) got invaded. It only took the help of Russia, USA, Canada, and the UK to stop Europe from being completely overrun by the Nazi regime.
10-28-2009
abachler

And subsequently by the Red Tide. Europe only exists because the Allies saved it from the Nazi's and the Soviet's. Unfortunately Europe has had it easy for so many years, not having to provide entirely for their own defense, that their ability to engage in strong political discussions is weakened through atrophy. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. Europe's stick is just a twig.

All political agreements are merely financial arrangements to reduce the cost of going to war. If a country cannot, through unwillingness or inability, go to war, it has no political power.

Europe quite literally exists by our leave.
10-28-2009
Mario F.

Yes, but the big stick is not having an effect in Afghanistan, neither it has helped solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is helping the against Iran ultimate goal or stopping once and for good North Korea Hide&Seek strategy.

Through cooperation it just may be that this war is not going to be lost, which is what it seems it will indeed happen. Instead of asking your own administration to send some tenths of thousands more troops, you should probably be demanding a clarification from the European union, especially from countries like France or Germany who seem to be shoving their responsibilities under the carpet (responsibilities which include arms dealing with many of these groups).

I'm not one to brush off any responsibility just because it happens to be my continent. I don't give a rat's arse. I was blessed to be born without an ounce of patriotic fervor. And I see my continent behaving like a Coward (capital letter intended). Instead I'm worried that loosing the Afghan war may have very serious consequences on the region and will be the definite empowerment of all extremist religious groups in the world.

And currently I'm ........ed at Obama's administration for not turning its eye on to Europe and demanding "Either you are with us, or against us". (I thought I would never say this. But bloody hell! It may have been the wrong war back then, but they were the right words)
10-28-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Yes, but the big stick is not having an effect in Afghanistan,

Last I checked there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, so I say it is having exactly the effect we intended. It sets an example to all the other terrorist nations, ........ with America and we will occupy your country indefinately. Your women will question your ability to protect them and your kids will learn about Coca Cola.

Added - As far as multinational troops, it sounds nic from a political perspective, but really its more of a pain than its worth. Unless the other partners are sending significant numbers the logistics in coordinating multiple chains of command are just too cumbersome to be operationally effective.
10-28-2009
VirtualAce

I, too, am a little miffed at Europe's tendency to sit and judge the actions of the U.S. when it comes down to matters of war. They could change the precedent here by actually helping out instead of playing Monday morning quarterback and telling us everywhere we screw up.

The way I see it the US, UK, and Australia (usually) are thermostats and most of Europe is a thermometer. Thermostats change the temperature while thermometers report the temperature. It is far easier to sit back and not get involved yet judge those who do than commit your own forces to the cause and on the off-chance do something that might anger another country. But in reality, as has been mentioned, the more multi-national troops you have the harder it becomes to wage war. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

Europe can judge us but by now Europe surely understands that the US will step up and commit her troops to stabilize a region. We may not always do it in the right way and we are not perfect but at least we put forth one hell of an effort. If you fellas in Europe really feel this way about getting involved then let your leaders know. I don't know how things are run in each of your respective countries but surely the voice of the people means something?

I'm actually taken aback by some of the posts here b/c I thought through and through Europe hated the US. In my mind we are not all that different from one another. I do not feel that ultimatums will convince a country to become involved in a conflict and what right do we have to issue them? I feel that if we set the example and back our words with troops then perhaps some European countries will follow suit.

Quote:

Well, without going into the possible roots of the war, I do think that there needs to be a greater sense of urgency among the leadership. My advice would simply be to quickly reorganize and then move in swiftly for a decisive battle.

This is what the US does best...when we do it. We suck at occupying and we are not built or trained for it. Our armed forces are trained to go in for a few weeks, decimate the battlefield, and come home and celebrate with lots of beer, family, and friends.
10-29-2009
maxorator

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

And subsequently by the Red Tide. Europe only exists because the Allies saved it from the Nazi's and the Soviet's.

Anyone from Eastern Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus would disagree with that statement.
10-29-2009
whiteflags

Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union saved Europe from itself? Even considering that the Soviet Union collapsed, I don't think it was something that was engineered on purpose no matter how many USSR citizens were ........ed off by Communism.
10-29-2009
nvoigt

I guess he means that the former states of the Warsaw Pact would not consider themselves "saved by the Allies" as the had to endure half a century of communist dictatorship.

Quote:

Europe has a history of sitting back and judging while others do the heavy lifting.

With "a history" you probably mean the last 10-60 years, a timespan that the average european wouldn't even consider "history" yet. As a German, though it isn't exactly something to be proud of, I think we did a lot of this "heavy lifting" in the last century. Sitting back judging instead would have saved the world a lot of trouble and death. The lesson from this is that Europeans and especially Germans are afraid of armed conflicts, because of both the opionion of their own population as well as the opinion of other governments. From my perspective, that's the wrong lesson we learned. We should have learned, that with power comes responsibility, the responsibility to actually use that power if neccessary. Appeasement did not work back then, we should know best, and therefore we should try to not repeat those mistakes.

What I think is hypocrite about German engagement in Afghanistan is the force that we deployed. If it gets critical, that force needs protection from the US. We have no heavy combat vehicles, we have no air support, neither close nor otherwise, no means of extraction on our own etc. Who tries to wage a war with a force that needs protection itself? I have the feeling, we sent a battalion of cooks and their guard units.

Another point is the public opinion at home. A single death (tragic as it may be for the family members and friends) is reason enough to question the whole operation. We decided to go to war. What were people thinking when they voted for war? That nobody would die? 10.000 dead due to flu each year, 5000 people get killed in traffic each year and then 2 dead per year is too much for a war? Somehow Germans and I probably have different meanings for the word "war".
10-29-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxorator

Anyone from Eastern Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus would disagree with that statement.

Then they should have fought harder against the Germans. We saved 90% of Europe, but you say we failed because we didn't save it all, typical of Eurotrash.
10-29-2009
maxorator

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union saved Europe from itself? Even considering that the Soviet Union collapsed, I don't think it was something that was engineered on purpose no matter how many USSR citizens were ........ed off by Communism.

I'm suggesting the allies abandoned the countries occupied by the USSR. Even though they signed a treaty which specifically said that all pre-WW2 borders would be restored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Then they should have fought harder against the Germans. We saved 90% of Europe, but you say we failed because we didn't save it all, typical of Eurotrash.

Maybe they would have fought against the Germans if they wouldn't have been occupied by the USSR before the real fight even started.

I'm not arguing the allies saved the Europe from Nazis, I'm just saying they didn't save it from the Soviets.
10-29-2009
nvoigt

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Then they should have fought harder against the Germans. We saved 90% of Europe, but you say we failed because we didn't save it all, typical of Eurotrash.

Poland alone lost half the number of military personal the US lost, being only about 1/5th in population. Setting it in relation would lead to the opinion that Poland fought 2.5 times as hard as the US. Yugoslavia even lost more men absolute than the US while being only 1/10th the population. They fought 10 times harder than the US. I'm not saying the US failed at anything, I'm just saying that Ex-Warsaw Pact Members might not see you as the glorious saviour you picture yourself, especially not, if you tell them they should have fought "harder", when in fact they were invaded and brutalized (in case of the Baltic states "at least"!) twice, thereby wearing the brunt of the war.
10-29-2009
Mario F.

Moreso because for the most part they saved themselves and have not been in fact helped by the western block in any way imaginable. Quite on the contrary.

USA educational policies considering the last half of the 20th century really need to be revised. It's only natural a country tries to elevate their achievements when teaching young impressionable kids at school. But these kids become grownup men and these grownup men end up revealing an almost impossible state of ignorance their schools fostered and their patriotic fervor further elevated.

The idea that USA saved Europe is a sad example. In fact, USA helped save Europe. And as a matter of fact Europe helped save itself too. D-Day would have never happened hadn't the French Resistance provided the allies with all the field work during the preceding months. And the French Resistance couldn't have done none of this work, hadn't the English supplied them with training and equipment since the first few months after France was occupied. Similarly D-Day would have failed miserably hadn't the Soviet Union force a second war front on the eastern side, neither it would have had any chance of success had the American troops fought it alone without the presence of of its allies.

Similar to Eurotrash, there is the Americantrash. Uneducated, patriotic rednecks who, while at school never read past the part that said "and USA entered the war", and while they grew up never again picked an history book.
10-29-2009
abachler

They surrendered before the last man fell in a war against an enemy whose policy was to exterminate inferior races. In no way does this garner my respect. Had they continued to fight it could have significantly shortened the war and reduced total losses on all sides. Instead they chose the path of dishonor and slavery, and now they expect to not have to live with that stigma.
10-29-2009
Mario F.

You clearly don't know that the Final Solution was in fact a desperate measure during the last stages of the war.
You also clearly don't know that racial prejudice was in fact mostly internal propaganda and party-related ideology. That the actual war had nothing to do with it but instead was the product of an historical context in order to reclaim land lost to WWI and expand the territory and influence of the Nazi Germany. Germany would in fact recruit from many of the countries it occupied. Not exterminate them.
You also don't seem to know that the occupied countries, with exception to those holding pre-WWI German territory were meant to become after the war satellite states within the notion of a decentralized German Empire.

But more importantly, you fail to reveal any knowledge on USA's Neutrality Acts and Cashy & Carry policies. The first even deserved the following comment by Roosevelt "American neutrality laws may actually give passive aid to an aggressor while denying help to victimized nations." And the second being one of the major contributors for Japan attack and Germany & Italy joint declaration of war a few days later.

It would be only in 1941, exactly 2 years and one month after the war started that the Neutrality Acts were finally put to an end. But ironically even then USA non-intervention policy was meant to proceed while the world tumbled all over it and its allies kept losing the war (and USA ships kept being sunk by german U-Boats!). Japan however had different plans that revealed themselves one month later... and then USA was indeed forced into the war. But meanwhile the Neutrality acts favored the development of Germany, the beginning of the war and the success of the German-Italy early campaigns while emptying the allies coffers and instigating Japan.

So, from the bottom of my heart I thank your grandparents and their fathers and mothers who sacrificed their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a just war. But don't think that will hide your country faults neither it will wipe out from history the millions of others from many other countries, who them too sacrificed themselves. Neither for one moment think that your patriotic propaganda will make it look like this war would have never reached your shores (it did in a terrible way), or that somehow you acted out of pure goodwill and uninterested desire to help your allies that were being slaughtered in Europe. You didn't. You were sheepishly dragged to this war. After 2 years of incessant cries of help from Churchill.
10-29-2009
Neo1

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

They surrendered before the last man fell in a war against an enemy whose policy was to exterminate inferior races. In no way does this garner my respect. Had they continued to fight it could have significantly shortened the war and reduced total losses on all sides. Instead they chose the path of dishonor and slavery, and now they expect to not have to live with that stigma.

You _must_ be trolling by now?
10-29-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You were sheepishly dragged to this war. After 2 years of incessant cries of help from Churchill.

Pre-WW2 America was isolationist. Only when we were directly attacked did we find it necessary to become involved. To a large extent, Americans as a whole are isolationist to this day.
10-29-2009
Mario F.

In any case Afghanistan is a global concern and it's no time for Europe to turn to the other side pretending it isn't happening or to let USA deal with it as if it was only their problem. It definitely is not. Apparently Madrid and London wasn't enough. And I do wonder how many Europeans forgot all about it.

It worries me that the issue is not even being discussed in Europe outside the closed offices of ministers of defense. It ashames me profoundly. As much as it angers me.

But on the other hand, I'm doubting Obama abilities as commander-in-chief. His last speech (was it yesterday or the day before?) "I will not send you in harm's way" reveals the antithesis of what a war speech should be. This is the speech of someone who knows the war is lost, who doesn't want the war to proceed, or who simply doesn't have a clue as to what ticks the military into action and wakes up the Eagle inside.

Exactly what is going on in the Pentagon that they can't come up with a sound strategy for Afghanistan, I don't know. What is it that stops the Obama administration from demanding Europe commitment, I don't know either. Maybe it is true. Maybe this country cannot be tamed. The one country that defeated the two superpowers. But one thing I seem to think I know about the military. Obama's speech had them throw up.
10-29-2009
maxorator

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

They surrendered before the last man fell in a war against an enemy whose policy was to exterminate inferior races. In no way does this garner my respect. Had they continued to fight it could have significantly shortened the war and reduced total losses on all sides. Instead they chose the path of dishonor and slavery, and now they expect to not have to live with that stigma.

Ignorance is not bliss.
10-29-2009
zacs7

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvoigt

Poland alone lost half the number of military personal the US lost, being only about 1/5th in population. Setting it in relation would lead to the opinion that Poland fought 2.5 times as hard as the US. Yugoslavia even lost more men absolute than the US while being only 1/10th the population. They fought 10 times harder than the US. I'm not saying the US failed at anything, I'm just saying that Ex-Warsaw Pact Members might not see you as the glorious saviour you picture yourself, especially not, if you tell them they should have fought "harder", when in fact they were invaded and brutalized (in case of the Baltic states "at least"!) twice, thereby wearing the brunt of the war.

Are you talking about the Polish soldiers fighting for/with Germany, or the Polish solders fighting against Germany?

Anyway the only way to solve all problems is move to your closest Antarctic territory. I just love that the US learnt nothing from Vietnam.
10-29-2009
VirtualAce

Quote:

D-Day would have never happened hadn't the French Resistance provided the allies with all the field work during the preceding months.

This pales with the fact that the waters ran red with the blood of thousands of Americans who died that day to liberate countries most of them had never even visited and countrymen they would never meet. I'll be damned if I will sit here and let you dishonor their memory and their sacrifice by somehow claiming Europe could have saved itself or after the fact trying to minimize
the impact of that day on the whole of the war in Europe. If I remember correctly most of your countries were trying to appease Hitler by giving him this or that while he was Blitzkrieging right outside their doorsteps. If Europe could have saved herself then why did she beg the US to step in for sooooo long? If Europe can fight her own battles then how come she never does? I have nothing against modern-day Europe or any of you in this forum but I will not agree with idealogies that try minimize the US's role in WW2 in Europe. Without the US's involvement Europe would have never been liberated....never....period. It's not b/c we are superior or in any way better than another country or that we aren't scared of the hell that is war...it's just because we stepped up and got the job done. War sucks and one death is too many but death is not a reason to turn tail and run before the job is complete. I'm not minimizing the death of any of your countrymen and they are just as brave as any man or woman who gives the ultimate sacrifice for their country. However facts are facts and the fact is had D-Day not happened the war in Europe would never have been won.

Quote:

So, from the bottom of my heart I thank your grandparents and their fathers and mothers who sacrificed their lives and the lives of their loved ones for a just war. But don't think that will hide your country faults neither it will wipe out from history the millions of others from many other countries, who them too sacrificed themselves. Neither for one moment think that your patriotic propaganda will make it look like this war would have never reached your shores (it did in a terrible way), or that somehow you acted out of pure goodwill and uninterested desire to help your allies that were being slaughtered in Europe. You didn't. You were sheepishly dragged to this war. After 2 years of incessant cries of help from Churchill.

We sent airmen to Britain to help fight off the Luftwaffe long before the war was official in the US. The point is if you keep tabs on the madmen and don't attempt to just appease them or negotiate through failed political policies (as we still attempt to do through the hideous United Nations) and allow them to get away with murder....you won't have to beg for help for 2 years b/c you will be busy kicking his arse all the way back to his own country. Pre-emptive action stops this type of tyranny but strangely even today when the US takes a stand against these madmen we often stand alone (although UK and Australia are usually there by our side) and then are criticized for not using diplomacy. There is a time for diplomocay but if it fails or goes nowhere you cannot be nieve enough to believe it will ever work. After diplomacy fails the only option is open hostilities. If it were up to Europe we would still be negotiating with Saddam Hussein while he secretly did whatever the hell he wanted. We would still be spending billions of dollars to deal with his many incursions into other borders - most of the incursions never made the world news and people only remember the Gulf War as the one incursion. Truth is there were many many more after that. Regardless of how we waged the war in Iraq or the validity of the reasons that were given at the time, Saddam needed to be dealt with and deal with him we did. I wished we had not masked the reason for Iraq as we did but that's politicians for ya.

To me the only thing Europe owes is just some respect for the men who died to liberate their lands regardless of who they were. Europe doesn't owe the US anything today but we all owe some manner of respect for the generation that fought in WW2. We don't know anything about the horrors of world-wide war and I pray we never will have to learn.
10-30-2009
Mario F.

If you feel I somehow tried to "dishonor their memory and their sacrifice by somehow claiming Europe could have saved itself", read again my posts. They aren't going anywhere.
10-30-2009
nvoigt

Quote:

Are you talking about the Polish soldiers fighting for/with Germany, or the Polish solders fighting against Germany?

There wasn't a significant number of polish soldiers fighting for the Axis.

Quote:

They surrendered before the last man fell

Poland fought from the first day of the war to the last day of the war in Europe, they never surrendered, mustered the fourth largest fighting force, sometimes even facing impossible odds, only to be betrayed in the field at the warsaw uprising and again at the table at Yalta. I have the utmost respect for the people who came to a foreign territory to liberate people they had never met before, but my guess is that they would hang their heads in shame if they heard you talking.
10-30-2009
VirtualAce

My post was not directed at a certain post but a general attitude. It is a sensitive subject with me since my entire family is or was involved somehow with the military.
10-30-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba

My post was not directed at a certain post but a general attitude. It is a sensitive subject with me since my entire family is or was involved somehow with the military.

As is mine. We can trace an unbroken military history back to the Crossing of the Rubicon.
10-31-2009
Mario F.

And I understand that. And trust me when I say I have the utmost respect for all the men and women involved in the war.

But "all" means all. Not some. Forgetting or pretending to ignore the effort put by the brave soldiers of Soviet Union, Poland, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, France, or the Netherlands is as offensive to any European as it is to any American the dismissal of their country importance. To that add the legions of German, Italian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Hungary dissidents and the efforts of the occupied countries resistance groups.

No one pales in comparison to no one in a war that was so close to be lost, where everyone lost someone, and which victory was only possible due to the effort of everyone involved. And I too will not sit by letting my continent be trashed around like if nothing of that mattered. USA body count is securely not higher than that of countries like the Soviet Union, Poland, France, Greece where not only more lives were lost but on most cases, the war wiped out 10 to 15% of their population (not 0.5% as was the case with USA).

And once the war was over everyone went back to their business leaving behind a group of eastern allies in the hand of the Soviet Union for decades to come. All dully signed at the conference table in Yalta by their own allies. The body count only grew larger.

Maybe if the WWII is taught in primary and high schools in USA once and for all without all the passion of a country constantly in search for their own heroes at the cost of the sacrifice of others, maybe you Americans will learn a little bit more instead of revealing a revolting ignorance and despise for anything great that is not your own doing.

Lower that cocky chin because it has always, and always will, only serve your own domestic agenda. It has no value whatsoever in the rest of the world where history is not told in the first person. (pales in comparison my ass!)

EDIT: Want to really learn about WWII? Get yourselves the full collection of World At War and also the 6 Volume The Second World War. Bet no one told you in school Winston Churchill was not only also an historian but also a Nobel Prize of Literature. And there you will see how much Europe respects and understands the decisive moment in history that was the American declaration of War on Japan. And how much we respect and honor your participation. That is what is being taught at our schools every single day. What about you?
10-31-2009
VirtualAce

Quote:

Maybe if the WWII is taught in primary and high schools in USA once and for all without all the passion of a country constantly in search for their own heroes at the cost of the sacrifice of others, maybe you Americans will learn a little bit more instead of revealing a revolting ignorance and despise for anything great that is not your own doing.

I have no control over what is taught and nor do you and yet you assume you know what is taught over here. What they are teaching now is a watered down censored version that is probably no more close to historical than the accounts in your post. Don't assume that all of us here are historically ignorant or only believe what is spoon fed to us. My core study area in my first college was history. I did not do it on purpose but it so happens I took so many history courses I ended up with a history as a core area of study.

Quote:

EDIT: Want to really learn about WWII? Get yourselves the full collection of World At War and also the 6 Volume The Second World War. Bet no one told you in school Winston Churchill was not only also an historian but also a Nobel Prize of Literature. And there you will see how much Europe respects and understands the decisive moment in history that was the American declaration of War on Japan. And how much we respect and honor your participation. That is what is being taught at our schools every single day. What about you?

I have most if not all of what you are talking about as well as several books related to subs, air war, and key battles in the Pacific. I'm not as well versed on the European side of the WW2 since the Pacific is what interested me most. You act as if you have a monopoly on WW2 information. I really don't understand the point here or what we are arguing. Are we arguing that your WW2 collection is greater than mine or is this some other type of contest?
You act as if I haven't read that information or that it will somehow shock me and I'll magically see your point.

But since this post is not a contest to see who's WW2 knowledge or collection is better I say we get back to the idea of Afghanistan. If your country wants to help, then help, because even if you do, or don't, we are still going to go over there and do what needs to be done - with or without you. We always do, always have, and always will. Personally I don't care if you like that fact or agree with it or like or dislike my attitude. Bantering over this doesn't change what is really happening and what countries are or are not going to help us. Thinking about helping or wishing you could help doesn't mean squat in my book. I guess it comes down to putting your money, or your life, where your big mouth is. So put up or shut up as my family would say. My approach is probably not the most diplomatic but then again since I've been around and involved with the military I doubt that is what I've been taught. Diplomacy is for the morons on the Hill. They start the war with their mouths and the men end it with their lives.
10-31-2009
Mario F.

Quote:

What they are teaching now is a watered down censored version that is probably no more close to historical than the accounts in your post.

Sheesh. Really, whatever...

Quote:

But since this post is not a contest to see who's WW2 knowledge or collection is better I say we get back to the idea of Afghanistan.

You bet.

Quote:

If your country wants to help, then help, because even if you do, or don't, we are still going to go over there and do what needs to be done - with or without you. We always do, always have, and always will. Personally I don't care if you like that fact or agree with it or like or dislike my attitude. Bantering over this doesn't change what is really happening and what countries are or are not going to help us. Thinking about helping or wishing you could help doesn't mean squat in my book. I guess it comes down to putting your money, or your life, where your big mouth is. So put up or shut up as my family would say.

Your idea that what I say or do will change my country stance in the Afghan war honors me. But it is also nothing but a joke.

I revealed my feelings about mine and other European countries. And these I do also to those around me who care to listen. And I also place my vote when the time comes. If there is one thing democracy taught me is that I don't have to shut up, and my family told me is to NEVER shut up. Since I know we most probably had a similar upbringing on matters of Freedom, I suggest your rethink.

I was also mostly curious as to how Americans in general saw our meager involvement on this war. If my criticism of my own continent and of your president somehow displeases you, know it was noted.
10-31-2009
VirtualAce

Quote:

If there is one thing democracy taught me is that I don't have to shut up, and my family told me is to NEVER shut up.

We are talking about military matters here. First thing they teach you in the military is we DEFEND a democracy but the military is not a democracy. I was not telling you to shut up in reference to your opinions but I was stating that some of what you are saying in relation to WW2 are big words for a man who was never there. So put up or shut up means before you begin to criticize another's actions in wars you never fought in put your own arse on the line and then you might have the right to criticize.

I was always taught to respect and honor those in the military. Part of that respect and honor is not offering my opinion b/c I wasn't there, I didn't see my buddies guts get blown to smithereens, I have never been in a situation where people were trying to kill me at every turn, I have never done any of that. Now can I question the policies behind all of the reason for the war? I sure can and I do many times. But the line stops at the men. You never ever claim this or that about the men involved b/c even though you have the democratic right to say whatever you want....you don't out of pure respect. I can't explain it any better than that. Abachler seems to be of the same mindset (which scares me that we actually agree in this post) probably b/c he understands the military culture as well. It's hard to explain if you haven't been around it. But the basics are don't criticize the actions of men who put their lives on the line if you yourself have never done the same.

We can banter about the policies of WW2 b/c I could care less about politicians who never fired one round in the war or any other conflict. But let's keep it on the Hill and leave the actions of the men out of it. They were only doing what they were ordered to do so don't tell me what my grandfather or his friends or any other person involved were thinking or doing or why they were doing it b/c you simply do not know.

And for an extremely well educated person you are making some grandiose generalizations about Americans. From your posts you appear to think we are all spoon fed morons who believe everything we are told about this or that. Truth is most of us here despise the media, despise the modern historical books (since they are pure BS now), despise the government in one form or another, and in general are all working day to day to make ends meet and get to the weekend to spend time with our families and friends. You make us sound like woefully ignorant pompous bastards that go around trying to bully everyone else. Sorry, my friend but that is not true. What you see of America is what CNN, FOX, Hollywood and the other idiots bring to your door. The true America is much different than all that. So before you start measuring all of us by the same ruler you might want to consider actually listening a bit.

And now I'm done b/c Abachler and I are actually agreeing in a post which is scary. That in itself is enough to make me want to run away from this thread with my hands up screaming all the way. :D
10-31-2009
Mario F.

Ok. I now understand where you are coming from. I will have to agree with everything you say in this post.

In any case, I will protest my innocence as I never judged those involved in the war with the exception of anyone in a position to make decisions. With that, it is true I'm a bit bitter about USA non-involvement policy until 1941. But make no mistake I know there was an historical context to that and the policy wasn't shared by many of the Americans, including the President of the time. As much as, it needs to be said too, Yalta didn't give the western allies many options other than to accept Soviet demands. It's not that the western allies betrayed their eastern friends.

As for Teaching... ok. I went on a tangent there. From the start of the WWII debate, I was put in a defensive position by abachler's preposterous claims. In an attempt to make my point across I ended up generalizing too much. No, I don't believe every American is a mindless idiot incapable of filtering what they are taught at school or told on the media. Quite on the contrary. And I apologize for that.
10-31-2009
abachler

We have a word in the US for people that voice an opinion but don't foot the bill. It's called the peanut gallery. That is all Europe amounts to until it decides to commit significant resources to the region. The real issue here is that France is ........ed because they were allied with Iraq and were getting a significantly lower price for oil than everyone else in the world, including their European 'partners', which ended with our invasion of Iraq. Europe needs to wake up and realize that France is not the bastion of freedom it pretends to be. They actively harbor known terrorists. Unfortunately their position on the security council makes it inconvenient to implement regime change there, yet. Do not let them be the mouthpiece of Europe either officially or de facto, they do not have your best interests in mind.
10-31-2009
novacain

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba

The point is if you keep tabs on the madmen and don't attempt to just appease them or negotiate through failed political policies (as we still attempt to do through the hideous United Nations) and allow them to get away with murder....you won't have to beg for help for 2 years b/c you will be busy kicking his arse all the way back to his own country.

Pity the US did not follow this advice and funded, negotiated and trained people like Sadam and Bin Laden.

The Riegle Report details the WMD the US sent to Sadam in only a few years.
The US took no action when Sadam used US suppiled WMDs on the Kurds in Halabja.
The US has now contaminated large portions of Iraq with the use of DU core ammo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Europe needs to wake up and realize that France is not the bastion of freedom it pretends to be. They actively harbor known terrorists. Unfortunately their position on the security council makes it inconvenient to implement regime change there, yet. Do not let them be the mouthpiece of Europe either officially or de facto, they do not have your best interests in mind.

Neither is the US.

I suggest you look at the graduate list for the "School of the Americas" in Ft Benning, a US govt. funded 'freedom fighter' (terrorist) training center.

I suggest you look at the Riegle Report on 'Gulf War Syndrome', as it details the WMD the US supplied to Sadam.

I suggest you write you senator asking that Orlando Bosche is extradited from Florida to stand trial for his terrorist activities (never happen as he was CIA funded and trained...).

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 AM.