Re: Give McChrystal what he wanted and he will do the job
lo yeeOn
truth <tr...@universe.com> wrote:
>This McChrystal is an excellent soldier and leader. He understands
>the situation in Afghanistan and he has a way to win the war.
>Give him what he ask for and I am confident he will deliver excellent
>results.
>Very rare do u have man of such calibre in the military.
Despite your confidence in this general, McChrystal has a huge
credibility problem. A few months ago, I read that he was selling his
hearts and minds strategy for winning Afghanistan for America. But as
he spoke, the massive slaughter of civilians by US bombs and missiles,
from manned and unmanned airborne vehicales continued.
To the uninformed thousands of miles away from Afghanistan in the
western hemisphere,
Taliban has been advertised and sold as a fixed entity like Napoleon's
army so that all we would need to do was to have a smart field marshal
like Wellington or Kutuzov in charge and give him what he want.
With enough military personnel and hardware, with enough money, and
with a public campaign slogan carrying such a nice ring as ``winning
the hearts and minds'' of the people, we'd win the war in Afghanistan,
meaning that we can continue to stay put at the sprawing military base
in Bagram and have a puppet government in Kabul to ink an everenduring
treaty with us giving us freedom to do whatever we want in Afghanistan
_in due time_.
In practice, we actually need to sacrifice inexpensive soldiers' lives
from a coalition of willing nations, aka NATO countries, make them pay
for their soldiers' armor and we still have to kill scores of innocent
civilians every time we shoot at a Taliban fighter.
And in truth, the Taliban is neither a fixed target nor a fixed entity
but rather an ideology with a strong patriotic component. The supply
of Taliban fighters are not originally terrorists but rather converts
out of a sense of desperation when their families, friends, and homes
were one by one destroyed by foreigners who neither share nor care
about their well-being nor their long-cherished religion, a religion
which actually teaches more or less the same set of ethics as Judaism
and Christianity. They see the foreigners as a bunch of infidels not
in some abstract sense but rather in concrete terms: their words don't
match their deeds and give them constant pains, like the shoe-thrower
Mr. al Zaidi have told us about the pains the Iraqis have suffered as
a result of our invasion of Iraq.
For this reason, the supply of Taliban fighters becomes inhaustible
unless we stop the killing, and therefore stop the war.
General McChrystal's public campaign in Afghanistan of winning the
hearts and minds of the Afghgan people is disingenuous when at the
same time he made a request to the White House for a super-surge of
troops for Afghanistan. And of course it is illogical. He cannot
hope to eliminate the Taliban by killing more, or a lot more of its
fighters as we have just explained: These fighters are coming from
nowhere except the land we're occupying. They are indigenous people
who refuse to be subjugated. Even if there are Pakistani volunteers,
they are no more unnatural than the Scots, the Germans, the Italians
who are there fighting for General McChrystal to keep Afghanistan
occupied. During the Spanish civil war in the 1930s, American writer
Ernest Hemingway along with many non-spanish speaking people from the
US as well as other European countries fought as volunteers alongside
the Spanish Republicans against Franco and his Philangists (the bad
guys).
You see, Mark Mardell, the BBC's new North America editor, has this to
say:
. . .
But Afghanistan is the most immediate and perhaps the trickiest. The
BBC broke the story of the McChrystal report a few weeks ago, but now
the Washington Post has apparently seen the full document.
It presents the president with a difficult choice. On yesterday's
round of TV interviews, Mr Obama made it clear that the reason for
being in Afghanistan was to deny potential terrorists a base to carry
out another terrible attack like that on the Twin Towers and the
Pentagon.
It was about protecting America, and - by implication - not about
building a democratic, functioning nation, and even less about
managing an open-ended occupation.
But here is the president's dilemma. The McChrystal report, boiled
down, says that the US can only achieve its aims by building up the
Afghan people's trust in a functioning government, with a police and
military that can do the job.
Until that is done, there have to be more allied forces in more areas
of the country visibly protecting the people from a Taliban that is
growing in authority, and runs a shadow administration. It is not
simply about killing the enemy.
Now that sounds a lot like nation-building. The president has talked
about not putting the cart before the horse, by which he means not
talking about more troops or other resources before the strategy is
in place.
He may have decided he admires Gen McChrystal's thoroughbred and that
it is worth hitching a buggy on the back.
If so, he will find it tough to sell the general's policy to a party
and public reluctant to see more men and women sent to bolster an
Afghan government accused of election fraud.
. . .
And check out this from someone closer to the region:
No End in Sight
Obama Policy Will Kill Many More U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
by Ramtanu Maitra
Having inherited a no-win war from his predecessor, the 44th
U.S. President, Barack Obama, has decided to invest more money and
fire-power in Afghanistan, a policy guaranteed to make the war in the
coming days not only financially and physically more costly, but a
gruesome one, in the same way the Vietnam War was.
His new commander of U.S and NATO troops in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, a special ops veteran, is known for his ruthlessness
toward the enemy, but is weak on strategy. He has already bumbled
into the Taliban-controlled Helmand province, putting 4,000
U.S. Marines in a death trap. Since he took over in June, the months
of June and July were the worst yet for the U.S. and NATO
troops. More lives were lost in these two months than any other
similar period, since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001.
. . .
In summary, the super-surge strategy won't work. Commander McChrystal
cannot first kill a whole bunch more Afghans or Pakistanis to win the
hearts and minds of the people from the region and reduce the strength
of the Taliban. If he seriously believe his hearts-and-minds strategy
as he's been going around in Afghanistan and telling the locals, then
he is a fool thinking that a super-surge would defeat the Taliban at
the same time. And like Pinocchio in the City of the Cathfools, the
fools in us along with McChrystal will suffer the consequence of our
foolishness and be punished, regardless of the good and bad of the
other side, the Taliban. But even if his hearts-and-minds strategy is
meant to just fool the Afghans while his real aim is to win at all
costs, there is no logic in this game to support that outcome because
we've long lost the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Killing
more will just give the Taliban a greater supply of volunteers to blow
up in Kabul, at the diplomatic quarter, and the bases of various NATO
participants around the country. And there is nothing we can do about
it because our "allies" can only get so many of their soldiers killed
in Afghanistan before their peoples would tell their governments to
get out.
Obama would not be able to super-surge to reelection in 2012. If he
believes it, he is dumber than Bush and worse has less support because
at least the latter had the support of the racists, the anti-abortion
and religious fanatics, and the neocons. Obama should use his brain
and exert more leadership than he has so far.
America can fight the Afghan war for a little while longer because
China is financing it, not because it really wants to but because it
is riding a wild beast it can't dismount. But Obama would not be able
to super-surge himself to reelection in 2012.
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
would be a fool to buy his super-surge/hearts-and-minds combo approach
and will be punished as one would be punished in Catchfools City as in
the story of Pinocchio.
In article <IiNtm.42041$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
truth <tr...@universe.com> wrote:
>This McChrystal is an excellent soldier and leader. He understands
>the situation in Afghanistan and he has a way to win the war.
>Give him what he ask for and I am confident he will deliver excellent
>results.
>Very rare do u have man of such calibre in the military.
Despite your confidence in this general, Stanley McChrystal has a huge
credibility problem. A few months ago, I read that he was selling his
hearts-and-minds strategy for winning Afghanistan for America. But as
he spoke, the massive slaughter of civilians by US bombs and missiles,
from manned and unmanned airborne vehicles, continued.
To the millions uninformed thousands of miles away from Afghanistan in
the western hemisphere,
Taliban has been advertised and sold as a fixed entity like Napoleon's
army so that all we would need to do was to have a smart field marshal
like Wellington or Kutuzov in charge and give him what he wants.
Observer
"truth" <tr...@universe.com> wrote in message
news:IiNtm.42041$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> This McChrystal is an excellent soldier and leader. He understands
> the situation in Afghanistan and he has a way to win the war.
> Give him what he ask for and I am confident he will deliver excellent
> results.
> Very rare do u have man of such calibre in the military.
Hey MORON!
Why don't you volunteer yourself or your sons
to fight for your beloved general instead of asking
OTHER people and their sons to fight and die in
in Afghanistan to support your racist and religious
bigotism ah?
Talk is cheap asshole. And it is asshole
like you who thinks that you have the influence
to make other people to fight wars for you that
believe in wars. When it comes to you having to
do the fighting yourself, immediately you will find
something that you can afford to give way to appease
your opponents just so as to save you neck.
All those leaders and generals should be made to
be at the warfront and do the real fighting then we
can see that these bastards will somehow suddenly
become peace loving, even that dickhead bush.
Don't believe, just try it.
See how those captured soldiers suddenly become
pacifist when the swords are near their throats but
talk big when someone else's son is in the firing
line.
LOL.
kangarooistan
> Below, we'll see that commander McChrystal is no strategist and Obama
> would be a fool to buy his super-surge/hearts-and-minds combo approach
> America can fight the Afghan war for a little while longer because
> China is financing it, not because it really wants to but because it
> is riding a wild beast it can't dismount. But Obama would not be able
> to super-surge himself to reelection in 2012.
>
> lo yeeOn
> ========
The health of Australian Vietnam veterans
listen now | download audio
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2009/2689788.htm#transcript
The first results of a 15 year old Australian follow-up study of the
health of Vietnam veterans have recently been published in the
American Journal of Epidemiology.
Norman Swan:
A Sydney based group of researchers has just published a 30 year
follow-up of Vietnam veterans' health and well being and published the
findings in the prestigious American Journal of Epidemiology.
One of the authors of the current paper goes back to the time of the
Agent Orange Royal Commission. Dr Brian O'Toole is at the University
of Sydney's ANZAC Institute at Concord Hospital.
Brian O'Toole: It was a follow-up of the first wave of the study that
was first done in 1990 to '93 and we took a random sample of Vietnam
vets and we interviewed 641 diggers all over the countryside. And the
first results came out 13 years ago.
We found there was much more physical health deterioration in the
veterans compared to the Australian population and certainly much more
mental health problems in the veterans particularly depression and of
course post traumatic stress disorder.
Norman Swan: And ten years later, how many were you able to follow up?
Brian O'Toole: We got to see 450 guys. We were able to compare the
blokes who responded with the ones who didn't respond and with the
ones who had died to produce what you might call a representative
sample.
Norman Swan: So what did you find this time?
Brian O'Toole: What we found this time was even worse than the first
time. Sometimes the rates of mental illness in the veterans were
alarmingly higher than the general population. Relative risks of 5, 6
or 10 -
Norman Swan: That means 5, 6 or 10 times higher than the population.
Brian O'Toole: In general population samples as people age the
prevalence of mental illness decreases except of course for the
dementing disorders and of course the prevalence of physical disorders
will increase and we found that in fact yes, there was an excess in
physical illnesses but there was also a large increase in mental
disorders. So as these veterans are aging the prevalence of depression
for example is increasing quite alarmingly.
Norman Swan: And physical health is a bit worse or a lot worse?
Brian O'Toole: A lot worse.
Brian O'Toole: Exactly. A lot of things that the veterans tell us is
the army taught me to drink and smoke.
Norman Swan: Could it be that you've got a biased sample, even though
it was a random sample of the veterans, that the people who stuck with
you were sicker and wanted to tell you about it?
Another interesting thing we found was that when you compare the
national servicemen, the draftees, the conscripts with the regular
army enlistees there was a big difference in the physical health state
of the groups so that regular enlistees were more likely to have more
illnesses indicating a life lived in the army can lead to a
deterioration of the body.
The national servicemen only served 2 years but when you come to
mental health there is no difference between the natios and the regs.
Brian O'Toole: Well certainly military service is tough; it's tough on
the body. Certainly service in a combat zone or even a peace keeping
zone is potentially traumatic too. The Department of Veterans' Affairs
commissioned a study on the Gulf War veterans and the Gulf War
veterans were all navy, very few of them saw any direct action and yet
the post traumatic stress disorder rate was higher among the Gulf War
veterans compared to the fellows who didn't go, who could have gone.
So being in a war zone can harm your mental health particularly as you
age.
One of the things that we don't know is what is the course of these
disorders and we are trying to unravel the relationship between
alcohol and post traumatic stress disorder because it turns out that
in our study about half of the alcohol disorder preceded post
traumatic stress disorder and I know that there's a hypothesis that
people self medicate their trauma symptoms.
Well that's not quite the full story, there are certainly more alcohol
disorders in the veterans and their alcohol intake is much, much
higher than the general population.
Norman Swan: There was also heroin use amongst people on active duty
in Vietnam, has that had much of an after-effect? Although the studies
of American military showed that they stopped their heroin use when
they went back to America. Did that happen with us too?
Brian O'Toole: We didn't come across any charges for heroin use at
all. There was occasionally a little bit of cannabis but the
Australian culture was based around alcohol.
In Vietnam you had a ration of beer assigned to you so if you were
out in the bush for two weeks for example you'd get two cans per day
per man and when you came back -
Norman Swan: You consumed a slab!
Brian O'Toole: Yes, there were 20 or 28 cans waiting for you and
alcohol was quite rife. Rotary gave us some funds to include veterans'
wives in the study and we did exactly the same thing with the
veterans' wives as we did with the veterans, we used exactly the same
questionnaires and exactly the same psychiatric assessments.
And now we have male/female partner, pairs, which shows that the
veterans' wives also have poor health, particularly poor mental health
and that veterans' post traumatic stress disorder and aspects of their
war service such as the length of time spent in a war zone actually is
quite strongly related to veterans' wives' mental health.
Norman Swan: Dr Brian O'Toole who is at the University of Sydney's
ANZAC Institute at Concord Hospital.
Reference:
O'Toole BI et al. The Physical and Mental Health of Australian Vietnam
Veterans 3 Decades After the War and its Relation to Military Service,
Combat, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. American Journal of
Epidemiology 2009, doi:10.1093/aja/kwp146
Guests
Dr Brian O'Toole
Sydney University ANZAC Institute, Concord Hospital, Sydney
Presenter
Norman Swan
Producer
Brigitte Seega
lo yeeOn
creation of a lot of Afghan refugees seeking a new life outside of the
war-torn muslim country, some of them we can see at Calais in Northern
France. These people have paid a lot of money to get there and are
now desperately waiting for a chance to get to the UK via the Channel
to Dover on the British Isles, as the French government moves in on
them to dismantle the camps, probably at the urging of the British.
Notice the irony: as these two governments are busy helping the US to
uproot these people to ''stabilize'' Afghanistan, they have no desire
to have them around near their own home and so they hunt them down and
deprive them of even a new life. So what is the point of their costly
''stabilization'' operations in Afghanistan? a reasonable mind would
ask.
There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy and callousness in the NATO
war in Afghanistan. It is immoral; it is unjust. And therefore, it
should not continue!
lo yeeOn
========
In article <IiNtm.42041$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
truth <tr...@universe.com> wrote: