"They were weakening our morale, it was better for them to go."

March 14, 2002 2:03 AM

"They were weakening our morale, it was better for them to go." Thus spake one of our new allies, Afghan Commander Allah Mohammed, about U.S. soldiers in yesterday's Times article entitled "'Inadequate' U.S. troops pulled out of battleground". No doubt many will just call Commander Allah a low-down fluoridator and leave it at that. Sheesh, I mean, it's U.S. troops doing the fierce ground infighting over there, right? Er...well...but anyway...strangely, at least some U.S. troops "tactically reappraised" out the battle (as the U.S. military so aptly phrase-coined it) echo his judgment: "It was nothing like training at all," said Sgt. Michael Dickson, 21. "They were real bullets, and they were intended to hit you. It was scary at all times."

Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? Our young...Afghan young...always the young, learning about the reality of bullets, in our name.
posted by fold_and_mutilate (45 comments total)

Oh good. Was worried that an entire day would go by on MeFi without someone slamming Bush or the military. Good that today's post was at 2 in the morning - got it out of the way right off the bat.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:11 AM on March 14, 2002

Shah Mahood Popal, their deputy commander, believed it was self-preservation that stopped the Americans from launching a more decisive attack. “They didn’t want to risk losing lots of fighters. Afghans don’t care if they lose lots of fighters, so we are better suited for the task. They should stick to bombing,” he said.

fold_and_mutilate: perhaps the two armies are technically and culturally incompatible on the same battlefield. It seems to be the Afghans who keep asking the Americans not to help on the ground and the Afghans too who keep repeating they care much less about dying. The Afghans also clearly demanded more bombing from the Americans(at least in the beginning)and so probably see this as an intelligent division of labour too.

I know it's become a cliché and there must be more depth to it, but perhaps they do have a fighting culture which isn't as afraid of battle. Perhaps they are actually tougher.

In any case, the article is very interesting and sort of throws a spanner in the works of the U.S. PR machine, which understandably doesn't want U.S. troops to look more hesitant and careful than the Afghan fighters.

I'm aware I'm talking out of my hat here - but I'd like to see this discussed as the comparison between the American and the Afghan ethos of bravery is very interesting. Has the American notion of bravery ceded a little, over the years, to the growing reluctance to casualties - not only on the U.S. side?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:16 AM on March 14, 2002

Yes, Miguel, those are interesting questions. I'm curious myself.
posted by y2karl at 5:19 AM on March 14, 2002

Here's g2mil or two on related topics. Being a military ezine run by a former marine--and hardly a hardcore leftie, at that--it passes military crit part, if not the Bush--Is-Infallible, of the MosesMulligan test.
posted by y2karl at 5:36 AM on March 14, 2002

I'm not sure notions of bravery in themselves have changed. You've reminded me of the arguments back in September that said "this generation" is not ready for the kind of conflict that America would have to face. There's possibly a certain amount of mileage to that *at this stage* of the conflict, but it was also said with equal determination at the start of WWII. These lads are professionals and are adaptable both to the physical conditions of Afghanistan (eventually) and the mental conditions of a long war (eventually). They haven't had much time to prepare for either, whereas the Afghanis have been there fighting for most of their lives. Most of those Afghanis are fighting what for them is a war that stretches back decades and encompasses the entire duration of their lives. While they might be 'up for it', it's not that loing since all was fine and dandy in the minds of the American troops and that has to have some kind of an effect

It is clear though that something more than this has changed. Anything I say can only be speculation, but what part does the wish of the military to appear media friendly have to play in this do you think? You're off into the mountains to chase after people you know are highly mobile. First on the list of things to take is a sound system and speakers to cart around with you to warn civilians. Admirable, but I wouldn't want to drag it up the side of a mountain or have helicopters dropping it off and giving my position away. (Not designed to make it look like I know what I'm talking about, I don't!)

Still, you have to wonder where a mountain division that has troops who've never seen snow before (the Washington Post article) train.

Just out of interest, is it still the fasion to describe this war as 'over' and 'finished' or have we moved on to 'on-going' and 'nearing a conclusion' yet?
posted by vbfg at 5:58 AM on March 14, 2002

Good links, worth thinking about. And at least MidasMulligan's carping was short, for once.
posted by rodii at 6:04 AM on March 14, 2002

Here's g2mil or two on related topics. Being a military ezine run by a former marine--and hardly a hardcore leftie, at that--it passes military crit part,

Yes ... this is good ... the fellow

... had written dozens of articles for military magazines, but became frustrated that important issues are ignored by editors fearful of upsetting their corporate advertisers or government sponsors.

Funny, sounds curiously leftist to me. Same rhetoric as the typical indie.

if not the Bush--Is-Infallible, of the MosesMulligan test.

More! more! Pile it on! We need more evidence from the "Bush-is-completely-fallible-and-the-military-is-not capable-of-doing-anything-right crowd. Let's explore every nuance of their failings. Expose even the slightest flaw (or opinion that there's a flaw) to the glare of piercing minds. Let's create a continual jackhammering of article after article. Let's prove America is a worthless arrogant piece of shit that has no business even existing, let alone feeling any pride in itself.

(Ignore, of course, that with the arrival of the US, the Taliban were booted in all of 4 months - something the Northern Alliance hadn't been able to do in 4 years of trying ... such things aren't relevant).
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:05 AM on March 14, 2002

Bush-is-completely-fallible-and-the-military-is-not capable-of-doing-anything-right crowd. Let's explore every nuance of their failings.

Yes, let's don't investigate our leaders and hold them to a high standard. Let 'em be completely unaccountable.
posted by krewson at 6:36 AM on March 14, 2002

Spoke too soon, rodii.

When fold started talking like this, "Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? Our young...Afghan young...always the young, learning about the reality of bullets, in our name," I couldn't help but think his harsh medicine would go down much better if he delivered it in the form of folk song.
posted by rcade at 6:52 AM on March 14, 2002

This thread devolved into pure reactionary ridiculousness as quickly as almost any I've ever seen. There's nothing wrong with a twenty-something soldier stepping off a plane and being scared of seeing bullets whizzing by for the first time. I don't see how this is an attack on the military at all. Midas, I think you were expecting an attack from F_a_M, but I fail to see where it is. Reading F_a_M's initial post, it strikes me as more of an indictment of the Afghans, the internecine warfare between their commanders and the difficulty in cooperating with them far more than as an attack on our own military.
posted by Sinner at 7:27 AM on March 14, 2002

Yes, let's don't investigate our leaders and hold them to a high standard. Let 'em be completely unaccountable.

Yes - let's ignore anything even remotely approaching a balanced view of the world. We must assume that our government and military are by definition wrong and corrupt, and that the only real debate is over the various ways that they are wrong, and the depth of the corruption (this, however, must be portrayed in stridently moral terms - it's just innocent helpful citizens questioning their government to keep it healthy - it is not, mind you not, purely partisan shots taken because the last election didn't turn out the way we wanted). Of course, anyone that participates in the exploration of the full cowardice of American soldiers is insightful and intelligent, whilst anyone that doesn't conform completely to this ideology is "carping".

Do tell me - would you really like anyone that doesn't agree with you to just go away completely? Or is it that you'd rather they just limit themselves to single sentences that can easily be ignored and dismissed? Just curious ... as it appears here that questioning the government is good, but actually questioning the questioners is not something that produces a "healthy" democracy. Interesting.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:27 AM on March 14, 2002

MidasMulligan: There's a difference between questioning the questioners, and simply contradicting them. Yes, fold-and-mutilate tends to post liberal views, and yes there's plenty of thoughtless liberal cheerleading in MeFi, but it seems you're just trying to shout down any thoughtful opposing view. How about some links to alternative interpretations of the events?
posted by liam at 7:44 AM on March 14, 2002

I don't think there's much room for debate, to be honest.

The Afghans have been fighting for a long time. The US troops haven't, especially not in these conditions. The Afghans aren't so concerned about casualties, and the US troops are.

If these statements hold true, you can assume the Afghans will be more effective on the ground. This doesn't mean the US fighters are weak, frightened, or outclassed -- it just means the Afghan fighters are more effective from the ground.

Bombing from the skies is our specialty, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you have a strength, you should play to it. The Afghans are probably better fighters on the ground, and the US certainly has as lot of success from the skies.
posted by jragon at 8:13 AM on March 14, 2002

Of course, anyone that participates in the exploration of the full cowardice of American soldiers is insightful and intelligent, whilst anyone that doesn't conform completely to this ideology is "carping".

Straw man. It's your tone (as evidenced by the above quote, which bitterly attacks something no one ever said), your lack of any constructive contribution (as liam notes), and your weird combination of smugness, defensiveness and prolixity that make you so utterly tiresome.

The post brings up some interesting issues regarding what happens when young men get into a real war. The juxtaposition of American and Afghan fighters seems to me a telling illustration of how our culture has perhaps left us unprepared for the realities of this war. I don't see any cowardice depicted, either in the linked stories or in F-&-M's discussion. That's all in your head. On the contrary, I see heroism: soldiers saying, we were scared but understand why we're here and we did our jobs. I'm against this war, but that doesn't translate into contempt for the soldiers who are fighting it: I think foldy is right to lament that we do this to our young men; whether it's necessary or not, it's still a tragedy.
posted by rodii at 8:19 AM on March 14, 2002

The thread devolved? It was foldy posting. It began as polarized, contemptuous commentary. It was formed in the very womb as polarized, contemptuous commentary. There was no devolution, no higher form of life to which this thread aspired. Nay, it has human form, but of the grotesque and under-bridge-dwelling variety. If, like Sinner, you didn't see it, read his folkie-hippie closing lines; or if you missed it, his reference to "low-down fluoridator", which is intended to evoke that great satire of the Cold War that we all know and love. Maybe I've just been reading foldy too long to believe that he thinks otherwise.

First of all, it is a truism of war that "No battle plan ever survived contact with the enemy." (Von Moltke, Prussian Army, 19th c.) In this case that was certainly true. That an initial assault finds heavier fire than predicted, and must adjust its posture, reposition, reinforce, or any number of alterations, is not some kind of bitter indictment of those troops' bravery or competence in and of itself, no matter how hard you try. Wow! The bad guys had more guns!

Second, the mujahedin hill fighters who represent the cream of Afghanistan's military culture, as it were, have made an art form of the hit-and-run guerrilla assault. During the Soviet occupation, the Pakistani general who tried to manage the war (something like herding cats; he was schooled in traditional infantry-cavalry doctrine) found repeatedly that the Afghan forces would prefer a noisy, raucous, and militarily useless attack that gave their forces a morale boost to one which required sustained contact with the enemy and losses against an objective. They didn't have the training, they didn't have the men, they pretty much didn't have the weaponry, and they rarely did anything so bold as to hold territory (late in the war, in this very region, they did try to take a city, Khost -- I think they held it about a week). But ironically, this meant force preservation, which is historically the chief imperative for a guerrilla army, rather than military successes. In that sense, they learned to fight the way they needed to in order to throw off the Soviets, because in the end any occupying power will tire of dealing with endless attacks, even if they are generally pinprick.

So we have established that Afghans fight for momentary success, rather than traditional military objectives. Sure, they'd love to rush in there, even if it meant major losses, because under their traditional tribal warfare rules, they could always fall back and claim victory in a great battle. The US objectives are a little more clearly defined and take a longer view.

The US soldier is also of tremendously greater value than any single Afghan soldier. The technology he carries with him, the training, the force multipliers, and the backing of our air force and logistical support all mean that a single American soldier on the ground can accomplish much more than a single Afghan soldier who basically has himself, his heart, and his Kalashnikov. One doesn't want to say such a man is not brave, because of course he is, but the loss of his life is a numerical blow to his armed force of fractional value compared to the loss of a US soldier. Nevertheless, the entirety of Operation Anaconda has demonstrated that, hopefully once and for all, the shadow of Mogadishu, which persuaded bin Laden to think of the US as a "paper tiger" in his own words, has been expiated -- we willingly put men in dangerous situations, we took casualties, and we did not flinch, because we knew that was necessary going in.

Despite the efforts of people like fold_and_mutilate to stretch facts and portray otherwise, battles like this one for Shahi Kot show our resolve to our enemies. A couple of reports in Western newspapers that, gosh, soldiers were surprised on first being shot at, does not carry as much weight as caves collapsed in on their inhabitants.

As Sun Tzu said, Supreme excellence in war consist in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Or firing a shot. If our enemies continue to find reasons for us to hold demonstrations like Shahi Kot, that day will come sooner.

Sgt Stryker had a great post on this question. The Sarge says that the military is casualty-averse in doctrine because they came to believe the public was casualty-averse; but he argues instead that the public was only averse to casualties in operations where the national interest was clearly not at stake (as opposed, perhaps, to the national reputation), and the military is going to be slow to accept that they can fight again.
posted by dhartung at 8:29 AM on March 14, 2002

The juxtaposition of American and Afghan fighters seems to me a telling illustration of how our culture has perhaps left us unprepared for the realities of this war.
rodii: The only cultures ever prepared for the realities of war are the ones that are already fighting. Remember also that the Afghan soldiers that could not adapt to the hardships of war are already dead.
MidasMulligan: Yes, questioning the government is not only always good, but a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. Questioning and criticizing the government is what folks in, say, Syria or N.Korea are not allowed to do.
posted by talos at 8:31 AM on March 14, 2002

So you're taking battlefield assesments from the same Afghan "commanders" who whined for weeks America wasn't really helping with their bombardment of the Taliban?

And a 21 year old was scared when a bullet whizzed past his head? Heavens to Betsy! The Empire will surely fall.

There are very honest issues to be discussed about this war, but there's a certain contingent here that just seems to be waiting in glee for America to fail. I suppose for all the filthiness on the right, we're seeing the twisted side of the left come out too.
posted by owillis at 8:40 AM on March 14, 2002

dhartung, with all due respect, your comments prove my point. There's no point in having arguments with people's politics in general, only with their statements. And the characterization of those words by yourself, MidasMulligan and others was inaccurate. If that's what fold_and_mutilate meant, let him say it before you jump down his throat. At best, it's a possibility that such an *implication* existed.

The thread devolved? It was foldy posting.

Oh, I see. So it wasn't what he said, so much as who was saying it? A specious argument.

It began as polarized, contemptuous commentary. It was formed in the very womb as polarized, contemptuous commentary... Maybe I've just been reading foldy too long to believe that he thinks otherwise.

Maybe. I remember someone said something along the lines of "Midas, I think you were expecting an attack from F_a_M, but I fail to see where it is. Reading f_a_m's initial post, it strikes me as more of an indictment of the Afghans, the internecine warfare between their commanders and the difficulty in cooperating with them than as an attack on our own military."

Maybe that poster was right, eh?
posted by Sinner at 8:45 AM on March 14, 2002

Oh, whatever the Afghan commander is telling his troops, we didn't call him in because our guys were scared -- we called him in because the local Afghan commander was proving unreliable. Pashtun warlord Zia Lodin helped out in the first days, but not only did he not move in his forces under the coalition strategy for the battle, but (can't find the link) local Pashtun forces were being a little too 'friendly' to the guerrillas, and couldn't be fully trusted to man the exits, as it were. The new force that was brought in from Kabul was a mostly Tajik Northern Alliance force, and though initially there was some friction because of the ethnic differences, the ultimate objective of using a mixed Afghan force in this battle was achieved, in that this underlines the authority and commitment of the central government -- especially when a warlord goes rogue.

Also, Shahi Kot has meant the largest battlefield deployments in decades for Australian and Canadian troops, who last fought in such numbers in Vietnam and Korea respectively. As a means of preparing and maturing our allies for possible future battles, Shahi Kot has proved invaluable.
posted by dhartung at 8:46 AM on March 14, 2002

"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us soon." - GW Bush

Miguel: In any case, the article is very interesting and sort of throws a spanner in the works of the U.S. PR machine, which understandably doesn't want U.S. troops to look more hesitant and careful than the Afghan fighters.

The interesting discussion I was hoping for is what Miguel had originally brought up, but it's probably too late for that now. What about a United States that says we will go after our enemies, stop at nothing, but is reluctant to risk lives over it? Don't you think the terrorists are acutely aware of this fact? If we didn't have the stomach for this back in September, should the President have stated then that the U.S. will use diplomacy to bring bin Laden to justice? I always thought the U.S. was about "Walking the walk", but current actions do not seem to bear that sentiment out.

I've read the items linked in this thread and realize that the military is quite aware of the public's distaste for casualties, but if that dictates current strategy, then why was it not made clear to the President on Sept. 12?
posted by Vek at 9:01 AM on March 14, 2002

What about a United States that says we will go after our enemies, stop at nothing, but is reluctant to risk lives over it?

Bush has been telling us for a while to expect casualties. The American people expect casualties. Support from the war hasn't dropped one iota since the deaths during Operation Anaconda. If we could get the Afghan soldiers to do the early fighting, what's the harm in that? It's quite obvious when there was an operation requiring US muscle we didn't hesitate going in.

The only folks without the stomach for it are the people who would protest any war for any reason.
posted by owillis at 9:07 AM on March 14, 2002

The only folks without the stomach for it are the people who would protest any war for any reason.
Do you mean to say that all war is justified?

The American people expect casualties.
I'm not so sure, judging by the heavy coverage given to the single digit body count thus far.

Support from the war hasn't dropped one iota since the deaths during Operation Anaconda.
Are you sure? Chris Matthews would beg to differ in this article linked to in the g2mil piece.

The U.S. said the justice would be brought to the culprits of the terrorist attacks--"Dead or Alive", I believe--yet our military is not firing any bullets to do just that. And as the linked articles make clear, just dropping bombs and hoping the locals can drive the still large numbers of al-Qaeda out of their caves is not accomplishing the stated goal of the mission.
posted by Vek at 9:20 AM on March 14, 2002

So... is it possible that al-Qaeda have also read Sun Tzu?
posted by Vek at 9:23 AM on March 14, 2002

Do you mean to say that all war is justified?
Certainly not. I'm talking about people who would oppose any war, regardless of the elements behind it just or unjust (say Vietnam vs. WW2)

Are you sure? Chris Matthews would beg to differ in this article linked to in the g2mil piece.
Chris Matthews' opinions shift with the wind. I would hardly find him representative of the American people. The same voice pleading in that story is the guy who constantly advocates a full on invasion of Iraq every night on his TV show.
posted by owillis at 9:30 AM on March 14, 2002

I'm not so sure, judging by the heavy coverage given to the single digit body count thus far.

Media coverage is not a judge of public opinion, the news media is still covering the last war.
posted by Mick at 9:57 AM on March 14, 2002

I don't think it's fair to intimate that people who protest war don't have the stomach for war, see Ron Kovic.

owillis, in the article, Matthews accurately points out that even our allies (Russia, S. Korea, for example) are questioning our motives by escalating this "war" across the Mideast before accomplishing the original stated goal of bringing in bin Laden.

Do you want to discuss the possibility that our enemy here seems to be acutely aware of our military motives and anticipates our "rules of engagement" better than we execute them? I mean, this has been a six month battle and contrary to what was said in December--that this war was over--we are no closer to "security" than we were in September. As more people abroad and now at home become aware of that fact, the administration coincidentally tries to broaden the issue by throwing Iran, Iraq and N. Korea into the PR stew?

"Supreme excellence in war consist in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -- Right, dhartung, and who's doing the fighting: our side or the guys sitting in caves?
posted by Vek at 10:24 AM on March 14, 2002

The thread devolved? It was foldy posting. It began as polarized, contemptuous commentary.

And you continue with polarized, contemptuous commentary, quoting everyone's favourite loon, Sgt Stryker, who's currently holed up in a shack in Montana. Really, you're a pathetic and pompous figure, dhartung: you're not even good enough to be a proper warblogger.

Nay, it has human form, but of the grotesque and under-bridge-dwelling variety.

The sneer isn't fetching, you know?

The US objectives are a little more clearly defined and take a longer view.

Are they hell. Or rather, they're clearly defined as "war, wherever, for as long as we can keep our peckers up."
posted by riviera at 11:53 AM on March 14, 2002

Vek, are you high or simply misinformed?


Do you want to discuss the possibility that our enemy here seems to be acutely aware of our military motives and anticipates our "rules of engagement" better than we execute them?


If having his entire organization slaughtered was part of bin Laden's plan, he needs to go back and re-read Military Strategy For Dummies (First Ed) because continous massive loss of forces, supplies, and support is not a sustainable military strategy.

I have to agree with owillis and midas on this one, I read f&m's post as intending mock US troops. Perhaps it's because I've read enough of f&m's previous posts to at least have a general understanding of his views and his tendency to take similar views in the past.

I further agree with midas in his observation that the cry from the lefties is always "question authority" but when you call the lefty observations, comments, opinions, or poorly executed research into question, you're simply a mindless dolt who follows whatever the government tells you.

And some observations on some of the previous comments made:

Still, you have to wonder where a mountain division that has troops who've never seen snow before (the Washington Post article) train.

Since you didn't provide a link I can't comment on the specifics of what the Washington Post is claiming but I think our mountain division has seen snow. What they may not have a whole lot of experience in is sustained fighting at high elevations. Physics and physiology tend to go a little whacky when you make massive changes in atmospehric pressures without giving the body time to adjust to the change. Afghan fighters, who are used to altitude operations don't need the several weeks it takes for someone coming from sea level to adjust.

Also, much random discussion on this but I lean towards owillis' observations in general but specifically, one of the major differences between Afghani and US fighting styles is that Afghans are more ready to just throw human walls at the enemy, damn the casualties. The US, tends to take a more strategic approach that is more like chess than it is like football (an analogy to the Afghani fighting style). It's not the US style of fighting to send 5000 men running up the mountain and take massive casualties. The US likes to bomb the shit out of 'em, watch how they react and then attack pockets of enemy forces so as to generate the greatest impact using the smallest number of forces appropriate for the mission. Thus the military's growing adoption of sending in elite forces like Rangers, Special Forces and Delta teams who do nothing but drill night and day on setting up these kinds of scenarios on the battlefield.

And as a parting shot, I don't give a shit who you are, bullets flying by your head is a mind-f*ck. The Afghani troops have been subjected to this for years so they should be expected to have adapted to it somewhat. US forces who have never been in combat, are likely to feel that bone chilling fear until their mind has time to adapt. It doesn't mean that they are any less brave (or more brave for that matter) just that there is always a certain degree of stress that manifests itself as fear the first time you do something. That stress is amplified when it's something like jumping out of an airplane or having bullets fired at your head. However the longer you are exposed to it, the more you learn to adapt to the stress and the less you notice the effects.
posted by billman at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2002

Of course, anyone that participates in the exploration of the full cowardice of American soldiers is insightful and intelligent, whilst anyone that doesn't conform completely to this ideology is "carping".

Straw man. It's your tone (as evidenced by the above quote, which bitterly attacks something no one ever said), your lack of any constructive contribution (as liam notes), and your weird combination of smugness, defensiveness and prolixity that make you so utterly tiresome.

I'm sure I'm tiresome to you. Probably to fold and a couple of others too. Likewise, the continual carping on Bush and the military, the virtually perpetual, daily posts exploring some new way in which the US ought to be critisized, and the self-righteous tone so often taken gets a little tiring to me. So if I mirror the attitude back - and you don't like what you see ... well ... good.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:47 PM on March 14, 2002

...because continous massive loss of forces, supplies, and support is not a sustainable military strategy.

Last time I checked, bin Laden wasn't waging a military campaign, he was waging a terrorist campaign.

billman, Did you bother to read the linked article?

"The new troops were dispatched from Kabul last week after it became clear that the Americans had underestimated the number of militants still left hiding up in the mountains. Afghan commanders believe that the US has exaggerated the number of casualties in the bombing campaign, saying that at least several hundred al-Qaeda forces are up in mountain caves ready to fight back.
'We have been very close to their positions and we have seen no dead bodies,' Commander Mohammed said."

My "research" appears to state that perhaps the U.S. has exaggerated their success. But then, I'd be questioning authority and that would apparently be breaking the rules that you've set for this discussion. Oh well, I guess I'll just get back into the queue you're waiting on.
posted by Vek at 2:12 PM on March 14, 2002

fold_and_mutilate, are you any kin of wilfred owen? perhaps you are a second generation re-incarnation? i wonder...; )
anyhoo, 'strange meeting' or perhaps 'exposure', or the most direct 'futility', are the ones which affected me the most.
sometimes, i still get echoes of this in my mind:

'Was it for this the clay grew tall?
-- O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth's sleep at all?'
posted by asok at 2:35 PM on March 14, 2002

I've read the items linked in this thread and realize that the military is quite aware of the public's distaste for casualties, but if that dictates current strategy...

It doesn't, at the White House level. Whenever any war begins suddenly, there's always a lot of stubborn deadwood in the military hierarchy, set in the "old ways," that needs to be pruned off. In this case, we were stuck with a bunch of Clinton-era generals who learned the hard way that if you went into any military engagement anywhere in the world and lost men ::coughsomaliacough::, you might as well have started packing up your office because your career was over. Many of these types cannot adjust to the new reality, and need to be quietly kicked upstairs or retired. (And no, I'm not picking on Clinton; FDR faced the same problem at the beginning of WWII.) It can take up to two years to totally rid the Pentagon of all the Old School types; it's only been six months since all this started, so thus we still see examples of the military hierarchy's knee jerking the moment we have a single casualty, though to a much lesser extent than they would have even a year ago. Eventually. the entire organization will be on the same page in such matters. And luckily, we already have a tough enough group at the top to keep everyone underneath them in line until that point is reached.
posted by aaron at 2:49 PM on March 14, 2002

Vek:

No, questioning that number is normal. I question every number being reported from the war. There's a certain mix of optimism, propaganda, and just plain having to guesstimate being used by those who report or estimate numbers in the war. The point I was trying to make, was that there's a difference between saying "I think it's safe to assume the US military is probably going to pad the numbers a bit" and a FPP on MeFi saying "US MILITARY CAUGHT LYING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF AL QUEDA FORCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Now, obviously, that was not what happened in this post but neither did I say that one is not allowed to ask questions. But I do find it odd that despite the fact that the 3000 number regarding civilian casualties has been discredted by both those on the left and the right, including several independent sources yet you tend to see the same people pulling that number out in the middle of a debate here on MeFi (not you personally, simply illustrating a point). That's the questioning I'm talking about. The belief that even when proven wrong, the need to question the government is so overwhelming that one continues to use flawed data from which to base the questions.
posted by billman at 2:57 PM on March 14, 2002

major differences between Afghani and US fighting styles

SDB makes the distinction between warriors and soldiers :) but what we really need are army suits!
posted by kliuless at 3:14 PM on March 14, 2002

kliuless, thanks for the SDB link. I liked that one.

And in fact, that may be the reason behind OBL's miscalculation. We've all heard OBL call the US a paper tiger. Ok, great, but he had to assume that one of two outcomes would take place as a result of Sept. 11. Either we would roll over and he would be the hero of the Islamic fundamentalist world OR the US would stage 250,000 troops in Afghanistan and try to slug it out with the Taliban and al Queda like the Russians did. And had the scenario developed, he probably would have won. Sending home 10,000 Americans in bodybags with no gains would have been a crippling blow to US resolve in Afghanistan. Furthermore, with 250,000 infedels on Islamic soil, he would have been able to rally all types of overt and covert support in the form of money, troops, weapons, and other aid. Again, same result, OBL is the hero of the Islamic fundamentalist world.

Problem is, there was the third option which was to conduct war the way the US likes to conduct war which is by bombing you senseless and then picking off whoever didn't die in the bombings.
posted by billman at 5:29 PM on March 14, 2002

Try harder, riviera. Why don't you bring up my relationship with my mother, next? There's a proper troll, now.

As for whether bin Laden has read Sun Tzu, well, he doesn't seem to have absorbed much of it. This is, after all, the first sustained military campaign he's ever generalled. I'm not losing sleep that he's some kind of reincarnation of Napoleon or Clausewitz, either -- he did exceptionally well when we weren't paying much attention to him, and when he had the advantage of surprise. Certainly he pulled off one of the most jaw-droppingly audacious surprise attacks in military history of September 11 -- but he played that hand. Nobody's going to let their plane become a flying bomb, now that they know there are actually living human beings who will actually try that. And that's the trouble with terrorism, for both sides -- you can manage a sustained campaign of pinprick attacks (see Yasser Arafat for a short course at the Learning Annex). But managing a campaign that achieves political objectives is much more difficult when you don't have a sanctuary or support -- and the long-term effect of this campaign will deny al Qaeda both of those. The irony is that statelessless was both bin Laden's greatest advantage, and now his deepest weakness. He doesn't have a place to go home to -- and unlike Arafat, he's politically expendable.

billman, I actually disagree with you on your last comment. The bombing senseless part was definitely a key technique, but much more important to our success was the fact that we went out from the morning of September 12 on and made sure that the nations of the world of Islam would be our friends, as long as they didn't help OBL. Not only did we line up gradually firmer and firmer support across the Islamic world, not only did we openly go in and support the Northern Alliance (whose commander, Massoud, he had strategically assassinated days before 9/11), but we made allies inside Pashtun Afghanistan. Resolved to expiate the mistakes made before *cough*Somalia*cough*, we gradually turned square mile after square mile of Afghanistan into territory controlled by people who would say things like "The terrorists brought bad things to our country." Rather than his motley crew of Arab, Chechen, South Asian, and the occasional Oz and Marin devotés creating a pan-Islamic vanguard, we turned this "advantage" against him and painted them as the one thing that's united Afghans throughout history -- as foreign invaders. He can't have expected that.
posted by dhartung at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2002

Oh, and Vek: a terrorist campaign is simply a special case of a military campaign, no? The formal name, in the West, tends to be "Fourth Generation Warfare". If war includes infantry, armored cavalry, aerial bombardment, assassination, trade blockade, espionage, etc. -- it certainly includes terrorism.

No, it's not a traditional military campaign by any means -- but the broader your view, the more similar they are.
posted by dhartung at 6:06 PM on March 14, 2002

dhartung, correct you are and my apologies for making that into an overgeneralization. The strategy you mentioned was certainly a major portion of our success to date and something bin Laden probably was not expecting as well. However, I do believe what I described is the current doctrine of the military. It's the same strategy used in the Gulf War. We pounded the hell out of them to the point that when ground troops entered Iraqi soldiers were surrendering to news reporters. I think that both what you described and my cut-to-the-chase summary of the specific fighting style go hand in hand.

As sort of an offtopic item, there's a good reason those guys look so frazzled when they finally surrender. If you've ever seen some of what the military uses up close it'll scare the crap out of most people even during demonstration excercises. Imagine a constant shelling for weeks or even months. Even a weapon as simple as the big artillary guns . . . man, when they fire those guns, it sucks the wind right out of your lungs and will throw you to the ground unless you're standing directly behind the gun. I can only imagine what those 2000 lb cave busters must seem like if you're even within a mile of the blast zone.
posted by billman at 8:27 PM on March 14, 2002

billman: And as a parting shot, I don't give a shit who you are, bullets flying by your head is a mind-f*ck.

Can't argue with that. I think that's the point of the article, which goes on to emphasize that the US soldiers are sucking it up and doing their jobs anyway. Can't ask for more than that--I don't think even fold would disagree.

MidasMulligan: I'm sure I'm tiresome to you. Probably to fold and a couple of others too. Likewise, the continual carping on Bush and the military, the virtually perpetual, daily posts exploring some new way in which the US ought to be critisized, and the self-righteous tone so often taken gets a little tiring to me. So if I mirror the attitude back - and you don't like what you see ... well ... good.

All of which, except for the first sentence, is a total non sequitur. You're not mirroring that attidude back to me, because I haven't done any of those things. And you're not really responding to anything in particular in the thread--it's apparently just your generalized sense of disgruntlement with what you perceive to be the culture of Metafilter, which is fine, but it's a distraction from the topic. If you don't want to discuss the topic, move on.
posted by rodii at 6:15 AM on March 15, 2002

Try harder, riviera. Why don't you bring up my relationship with my mother, next? There's a proper troll, now.

I'm sure she's proud of you. Just wash your typing fingers before you pay her a visit.
posted by riviera at 11:47 AM on March 15, 2002

I just wonder why so many people are telling us what "foldy" does or doesn't think or what he did or did not intend in his post and the person who felt it was important enough to do a FPP is curiously absent from the discussion he initiated.
posted by billman at 1:10 PM on March 15, 2002

Curiously absent?

~smile~

Nope. Gots other things to do, most of the time...but thanks for worrying.

I do tend to read interesting threads on the days I have time to check, and I usually read the responses to the front page posts I make. And almost invariably, I find that there is little need to respond further. I had my say, then you had yours. (There has actually been talk here about the discourtesy of folks attempting to "moderate" their own threads).

And frankly, most responses (with notable exceptions) are either laughably illogical, or they are merely trivial, personal invective. That's childish but commonplace and worth exactly nada . My heart tends to go out to those who engage thus, because they are truly suffering. But, sadly, it's doubtful any further response here is going to change that situation, and I don't usually waste my time.

As far as this particular post, many will continue to insist that Americans are different than "the enemy"...different than the eternal "they"...despite the fact that each of us knows at some level that this be the lie of lies. Warring peoples must wear different uniforms to tell themselves apart, they are so very similar. Lies about the character and bravery of "we" and the cowardice of "they" must be screamed again and again by the fearful on both sides, for the truth is almost too painful to bear for some.

And still it goes on, the young indoctrinated anew into hatred and fear and violence. What a rebirth in this gentle springtime. In our name.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2002

attidude

?

A little post-Freudian slip there, Rodii? ;)
posted by y2karl at 12:55 AM on March 19, 2002

Karl, you're stalking me again. Everyone makes typos, even you.
posted by rodii at 5:34 AM on March 19, 2002

Muoi?
posted by y2karl at 6:03 AM on March 19, 2002