General McChrystal's plan for stopping al-Qaeda

**K0nTANK3Rous** · 12-09-09, 01:25 PM

they all have successors...i mean what's the total on the "playing cards"? I'm sure by now we're playing with a whole new deck.

**Xavsnipe** · 12-09-09, 01:57 PM

He's not just an ideological leader, hell some branches of Radical Islam don't agree with the guy....but he's a major financier....and his death or capture would be a great blow to the organization in that aspect.

**Potemkine** · 12-09-09, 02:45 PM

Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of armies. It screwed the British back in the 1800's, it screwed the Soviet Union in the 1970's and 80's, and its going to screw us up...unless we change our tactics considerably.

We are fighting in a conventional style in an unconventional terrain. No matter if we have 30,000 troops or 300,000 troops, it will still fail. What matters is HOW the troops are used. Everyone says that the "surge" in Iraq worked. But WHY did it work? Petreaus put these soldiers out in the field and had them doing random sweeps. Created several small outposts in the backwater areas. He instructed the troops to be as friendly, courteous and helpful as possible. Go out of the way to help them. Give them chocolate from your packs. Toss them a MRE. Show your presence and make them feel safe. Respect their traditions.

Small Wars tactics: 101.

When our special ops guys were there in 2001 and 2002, they were doing exactly that and "going native". Why do you think that their government fell so fast before the main force of our military had yet to go wheels up? Its because these special ops guys employed the small wars tactics and made inroads with the locals and negotiating deals with the Northern Alliance (who did most of the fighting) to work efficiently.

Then McChrystal came in and told these special forces guys that no, you must always wear a uniform, shave etc. WRONG MOVE. Integrate yourself as much into their population and daily life as possible. Improve the quality of life over there in meaningful ways.

This "surge" WILL fail unless McChrystal employs the small wars tactics. Judging by his track record, thats not going to happen. The real ironic part about it is that the USMC developed the small wars tactics manual back in the 1920's and 30's, after and during all the "Savage Wars of Peace" we had with the little countries in the Gulf of Mexico, Central and South America.

Everyone knows that the US went into Cuba in 1898 in the Spanish-American War...but did you know we went in 3 MORE times after-wards before 1940? Why do you think we set up Guantanamo Bay?

**Red_Lizard2** · 12-09-09, 04:37 PM

bit off topic and curious question but the talk of Saddam got me thinking. Do you think Iran (or at least how they act) would different if Saddam was still the leader of Iraq?

**deathgodusmc** · 12-09-09, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

bit off topic and curious question but the talk of Saddam got me thinking. Do you think Iran (or at least how they act) would different if Saddam was still the leader of Iraq?

I dont think so. He was an asshole before and an asshole now.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 12-09-09, 09:23 PM

Hard to say with hypotheticals.

Do you think Iran would be acting differently if the American public did not turn against the Iraq war the way they did.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 12-10-09, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

Originally Posted by hawgballs

BTW, isn't this the subject that Bill Maher was talking about, when your folks got into an uproar, because he said it was the "cowardly thing to do", meaning more of a commitment that just lobbing a few projectiles.

Thats creative interpretation if I ever saw it. People got upset when Bill Maher said that the 9-11 highjackers were not cowards for flying planes into buildings, then went on to saw that Americans are cowards for lobbing cruise missles from 2,000 miles away.

There was never any comment or intent that I am aware of, where Bill Maher advocated a boots on the grounds strategy.

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

I read nothing bad in what he said, nor untrue.

As far as the "boots on the ground" thing, I can only surmise that that is what he is talking about....... Otherwise, why mention the distance? Especially when referencing someone else that is facing certain death?(airplanes into immovable objects)

So yeah, those on the right did indeed get their panties in a bunch, because he said it was cowardly to launch cruise missiles from 2000 miles away, as well as saying that the terrorists weren't quite "cowards"............

But we digress........................

**~~hawgballs~~** · 12-10-09, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

He's not just an ideological leader, hell some branches of Radical Islam don't agree with the guy....but he's a major financier....and his death or capture would be a great blow to the organization in that aspect.

QFT

Imagine how crippled they would be, if we had severed one of it's financial arms 6-8 years ago.....

**~~hawgballs~~** · 12-10-09, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

bit off topic and curious question but the talk of Saddam got me thinking. Do you think Iran (or at least how they act) would different if Saddam was still the leader of Iraq?

He kept the Iranians in check for quite some time. If you look back, they didn't make a peep until we deposed the guy that had them shaking in their boots. So my speculation would be that they wouldn't feel so empowered as they do today, had we not invaded Iraq.