Originally posted by AThousandYoungAn interesting perspective (link in wiki footnote):
It's square e4 in the Great Game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
In each one of these struggles, there is rivalry between a distinctly "Eurasian base of power" and a "Peripheral base of power" that is dominated by Western Europe and the United States. In other words, the struggle opposes Eurasia to the Ocean-based powers of the Periphery. It is in this context that Eurasian powers have always been strong in regards to land power or their armies, while the Peripheral Powers have had superior navies. This is why Britain and Japan had powerful navies historically and why the U.S., on a global scale, has the largest navy. A look at China and Russia will show that they have had and continue to have large and powerful land forces.
Crowds can be worked on any ideals, but power is exercised on the basis of motives. With the proliferation of these colour revolutions in geographically and culturally diverse places, conflict can no longer be seen in the historic, and manufactured, East versus West lens of the Cold War era. To tag the opposing sides in Ukraine as pro-Russian/anti-Russian or pro-Western/anti-Western and in Lebanon as pro-Syrian/anti-Syrian or pro-Western/anti-Western does not recognize the reality and geo-political complexity of the Eurasian environment. It does not also recognize the indigenous dimension or facet of the colour revolutions. The demands and desires of crowds is a factor, but the objectives of the leaders in these rings should be the basis of any critical evaluation.
The geographic list of places given is where fluctuating battles on the basis of political manipulation are taking place. Offensive geo-strategic penetration by the Peripheral Powers and defensive geo-strategic attempts by the Eurasian Powers to roll-back these penetrative pushes is taking place in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The battle-fronts are in Eurasia with Eurasian Powers themselves being the ultimate prizes for the Peripheral Powers.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13140
Eurasia and East Asia v. Oceania.
Originally posted by no1marauderGFY.
GFY.
What exactly is being defeated? The neo-colonial aspirations of Western elites?
Im always amused by such display of maturity on your part, keep it up.
The neo-colonial aspirations of Western elites?
Fair enough, you don't agree with the reasons for the invasion, but regardless of how morally deficient they may be it still doesn't validate your suggestion that all the West can do is run away and hope for the best. You seem far too determined to underestimate the military capacity of these nations.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoMilitary capacity can't win this war anymore than it could win the one in Indochina during the 50's through the 70's or the one the Soviets engaged in in Afghanistan during the 1980's. The West can stay indefinitely if it chooses to, but it can't win. These wars are about will not firepower.
[b]GFY.
Im always amused by such display of maturity on your part, keep it up.
The neo-colonial aspirations of Western elites?
Fair enough, you don't agree with the reasons for the invasion, but regardless of how morally deficient they may be it still doesn't validate your suggestion that all the West can do is run away and hope for the best. You seem far too determined to underestimate the military capacity of these nations.[/b]
That the Taliban were able to break 500 of their soldiers out of a prison under the noses of the awesome "military capacity" of the Western nations is just another illustration of this fact.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI suggest the US should adopt the Spruce Doctrine, with regards to Afghanistan at least, and work towards the establishment of a credible government in the country and the elimination of the terrorist organizations it is fighting against. My point is simply that since the US has started the war it is its duty to finish it properly.
What is your suggestion? That the US stay there indefinitely and pretend that if we just stop having a defeatist attitude then it'll be ok?
There is a point where you have to realize that there is no way you are going to achieve certain goals and then you stop dumping resources at a cause you won't win - that's not defeatism, it's deciding to stop you ...[text shortened]... are legitimate questions that haven't really had public answers - and we should have them.
Im personally not a great advocate of the wars in the middle-east, far from it, but it would be a violation of both common sense and the trust of the american and afghan people if all those lives taken away by the war were to be gone in vain.
Originally posted by generalissimoThey've been trying that strategy for about 10 years with little success.
I suggest the US should adopt the Spruce Doctrine, with regards to Afghanistan at least, and work towards the establishment of a credible government in the country and the elimination of the terrorist organizations it is fighting against. My point is simply that since the US has started the war it is its duty to finish it properly.
Im personally not ...[text shortened]... the american and afghan people if all those lives taken away by the war were to be gone in vain.
It's irrational to let future actions be dictated by the psychological need to justify poor decisions of the past; what's happened before are "sunk costs" in economic terms. The US would still be fighting in Vietnam under such "logic" (which was strongly advocated by right wingers at the time).
Originally posted by generalissimoAfghanistan is a group of tribes, people in one area don't trust people that live over the next hill. The idea of telling them they have a nice national government courtesy of the US that rules them all is just impossible.
I suggest the US should adopt the Spruce Doctrine, with regards to Afghanistan at least, and work towards the establishment of a credible government in the country and the elimination of the terrorist organizations it is fighting against. .
Originally posted by no1marauderWow. You're right. Good find.
An interesting perspective (link in wiki footnote):
In each one of these struggles, there is rivalry between a distinctly "Eurasian base of power" and a "Peripheral base of power" that is dominated by Western Europe and the United States. In other words, the struggle opposes Eurasia to the Ocean-based powers of the Periphery. It is in t ...[text shortened]... arch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13140
Eurasia and East Asia v. Oceania.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotIn principle the Peripherals are unable to penetrate deep into the Eurasian supercontinent. However you are right.
then the Eurasian powers are hosed, as long as the theater of operations is their home turf and never the Peripherals'. and not likely to change without valid navies.
Orwell points out that Oceania is the strongest of the three superstates. I can't find the exact quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstein%27s_Book
Oh, also - continental Europe can be hit with land forces.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI wouldn't say that the West hasn't achieved any concrete results whatsoever in the last decade, certainly it has been a costly war (both in economic and human terms) but gradually there has been some success in helping communities rebuild their homes, and cooperate with allied forces on the war on terror. The afghan government has its credibility eroded by visible signs of systematic corruption, that is true, but in time I do believe that something of a victory over terrorism is possible in the country, the US army has already sought to win hearts and minds through the provision of material comforts and general aid to local people, for example.
They've been trying that strategy for about 10 years with little success.
It's irrational to let future actions be dictated by the psychological need to justify poor decisions of the past; what's happened before are "sunk costs" in economic terms. The US would still be fighting in Vietnam under such "logic" (which was strongly advocated by right wingers at the time).
Perhaps it is, but it is almost certain that the decision to leave abruptly before any meaningful change is firmly secured will prove to be electorally disastrous for these western governments (particularly Britain and the US), I doubt this is a policy the political leaders of the war will pursue.
Originally posted by generalissimoThese are the same arguments that were being made in the US in the late 1960's. They are no more valid now then they were then.
I wouldn't say that the West hasn't achieved any concrete results whatsoever in the last decade, certainly it has been a costly war (both in economic and human terms) but gradually there has been some success in helping communities rebuild their homes, and cooperate with allied forces on the war on terror. The afghan government has its credibility erod ...[text shortened]... ly Britain and the US), I doubt this is a policy the political leaders of the war will pursue.
A majority of those in the US say the US should not be involved in Afghanistan and a plurality support a withdrawal "ASAP". http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
How doing what most people want would be "electorally disastrous" is a mystery only you could answer.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe situation in afghanistan in 2011 cannot be realistically compared to the situation in Vietnam in the 1960s, for the obvious reasons.
These are the same arguments that were being made in the US in the late 1960's. They are no more valid now then they were then.
A majority of those in the US say the US should not be involved in Afghanistan and a plurality support a withdrawal "ASAP". http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
How doing what most people want would be "electorally disastrous" is a mystery only you could answer.
My point wasn't necessarily in referrence to popular views on the war, or more precisely the results of the gallup poll which are famously fickle, but to the opposition parties. The Republicans will jump at anything to discredit the Obama administration, and given their predilection for jingoistic posturing and belligerent rhetoric it is predictable they'd lambaste the Democrats with accusations of cowardice and of letting people down if they were to suddenly abandon all military presence in afghanistan.
Originally posted by generalissimoAnd why can't the situation in Afghanistan now be realistically compared to Vietnam in the 1960's? If anything, it's worse as far as the possibility of ever getting some kind of unified, pro-Western government in place.
The situation in afghanistan in 2011 cannot be realistically compared to the situation in Vietnam in the 1960s, for the obvious reasons.
My point wasn't necessarily in referrence to popular views on the war, or more precisely the results of the gallup poll which are famously fickle, but to the opposition parties. The Republicans will jump at anythi ...[text shortened]... of letting people down if they were to suddenly abandon all military presence in afghanistan.
Actually the polls on the war have shown a fairly consistent erosion of support for the war as time has went on. Let the Republicans adopt yet another unpopular position if they dare.
Realistically, the non-imperialistic reasons we're in Afghanistan is payback for 9/11 and trying to kill off the Al Quaeda leaders, especially bin Laden.
We've done as much of that as we're going to get done. We can't control their society and culture. Staying there isn't likely to be useful for anything but imperialistic reasons.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, I'm not sure we should be there anymore either, but at least the Taliban is spending their energy busting their buddies out of jail instead of bringing down skyscrapers in US cities.
Realistically, the non-imperialistic reasons we're in Afghanistan is payback for 9/11 and trying to kill off the Al Quaeda leaders, especially bin Laden.
We've done as much of that as we're going to get done. We can't control their society and culture. Staying there isn't likely to be useful for anything but imperialistic reasons.