Pulling Out?!

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jill L on May 20, 2010 at 3:58pm

Hi Brandon,

I'm replying not only as an 'average person' but as Metro New Yorker. I commute into NYC every day from NJ. I go through not only Penn Station, but Times Square and Grand Central Station as well. My sense of awareness is ALWAYS high, not fear, awareness. I don't live in fear because I do believe in what you guys/the Military are doing or have done out there to keep us safer, even though I am fundamentally an anti-war person. As someone who witnessed 9/11 and knew people who died, the long answer is a lot more complicated and something I've been personally torn about since these wars began.

The short answer, however, is that I personally agree with you 150%, and I cannot even imagine how difficult it must be for you guys who fought so hard there and lost so many friends there, to see what the US Military has decided to do to abandon their efforts and essentially set the stage as a safe haven for the return of insurgents to re-energize and also destroy any chance of a peaceful civilian existance in that area.

I have to say, in all honesty, that I'm not sure how I would feel/think about the withdrawl before I read WAR. While I read the newspaper, I watch the news, I've read Lone Survivor, and Horse Soldiers, there was something about WAR that completely opened and changed my mind and gave me a better understanding of what the hell is going on and how/why our soldiers are fighting and dying out there. For someone like me, who is not of the military world, this book, this glimpse into your world, opened my eyes wider than I ever thought possible, and I'm extremely grateful and thankful to all of you!

I hope this answered your question.

Jill

Permalink Reply by Bill Day on May 22, 2010 at 7:39pm

I cannot even begin to speak to what you guys went through or how you must feel.

From the perspective of a person back home, I have a couple of personal observations. First, we need more reporting like "War" to give us a glimpse of what's going on. One thing that comes across in the book is that you and your platoon were given a nearly impossible task: defending a remote area against a numerically superior enemy while being expected to befriend the civilian population but not carry the battle across the border into Pakistan. And you did it. I've never been remotely near a situation like that, but I think what you guys did is f*****g amazing!

Second, admittedly from the perspective of a noncombatant, it seems to me that the War in Afghanistan, like so many wars before, has had an amazing number of missed opportunities. I admit that I have not followed the war all that closely over the years (and to the extent that I am like the rest of the public, that is a problem in itself). However, it does seem to me that we did not get there "first with the most" and that for too long Afghanistan was treated as a poor stepchild to Iraq. It seems to me that in part, winning this kind of war ultimately depends on making fewer mistakes than the enemy.

To be truthful, as a member of the public back home, I can't really figure out the military significance of the Korengal and whether we should be fighting there or not. I hope the Army makes wise decisions about where to send the troops, and I don't really know enough to second guess it. But without wishing to disparage or disrespect what you guys fought and died for, the mission in Afghanistan does not seem to be very clearly defined, or if it is, it hasn't been very clearly communicated to the public. Afghanistan was a base for Al Qaeda, and you guys drove them out with vengeance. But there are plenty of other places for Al Qaeda to set up shop, and for political or logistical reasons we cannot attack all of them. So why are we in Afghanistan still? Perhaps we can make life better for the people, but if that's our mission, let's be clear about it and devote all the resources, military and civilian that are necessary to achieve it. Even so, that does not really answer the question of why we are doing so much in Afghanistan and not the other miserable nations of the world. Finally, while our military does an exceptionally good job at fighting, there seems to be a real debate over whether it is really intended or equipped to put broken societies together -- all the King's horses and all the King's men, etc. I am not sure what it takes for Afghanistan to get its s**t together, but for all our good intentions, I am uncertain whether the war we are fighting will help or hurt in the long run.

I am sure, however, that unless the public clearly understands the purpose of the war and supports it, you guys will not get what you need. And no one should die for the fuzzy thinking of generals and politicians. Shakespeare had it right in Henry V, Act IV, Scene I when he wrote:

But if the cause is not just, the king himself will have a lot to answer for, when all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in battle shall join together on Judgment Day crying, “We died at such and such a place.” Some will be swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some for the wives that are destitute without them, some about the debts they owed, some for their children left unprovided for. I think few die well who die in battle. How can a person expect to resolve anything in a Christian manner when they’ve passed their lives killing? Now, if these men don’t die in a state of grace, it will be a heavy charge against the king who led them into battle, whom they, as his subjects, could not disobey.

I think our leaders have not served us well by not clearly defining and communicating the mission to the public. I hope my concern over the definition of the mission is understood as being motivated by concern for our troops and our country, and is not mistaken for a lack of respect for their courage, sacrifice, and accomplishment.

Permalink Reply by Rhonda S on June 6, 2010 at 1:14pm

As a very "average American" (I'm a school teacher) who clearly remembers that beautiful September morning in 2001 when other very average Americans were murdered by Islamic Fundementalists, I say keep fighting in the Korengal. As long as our brave men are taking the fight to THEM, the innocent children I work with every day will be safe.

In the book Junger clearly points out that Arabs and Pakistanis are coming across the border and flooding into the valley to fight. I say better in the Korengal than the airports, shopping malls, train stations etc. in America.

Lastly, what I really want to say is thank you. The pride I felt for my country and our soldiers as I read WAR was overwhelming. The press does a good job of making it sound as if the "average American" is against this war or that we're war weary...but I'd like to make two points about that. First of all, I think it's bullshit (excuse my French!). The average American appreciates and understands the ramifications if the war is not fought "over there". Second, for those Americans who truly are war weary, they can piss off. They have no right to be tired of a war they have not fought. Only those who have spilled blood, sweat, and tears on the battlefield have a right to "be tired of the war". When our soldiers have had enough, only then can those of us here in the states feel the same. God bless you all.

Permalink Reply by Bill Day on June 6, 2010 at 2:36pm

I respect what you say, Rhonda, and I agree with your support for the troops. Two small points for possible reflection, however. First, we have been fighting in the Middle East and North Africa since at least 1803. When the Marine Corps sings about the shores of Tripoli, they are singing about capturing the capital of Libya. We've spilled some of their blood, they've spilled some of our blood, but it didn't all begin on 9/11. Second, I agree that we should not base our decisions about fighting wars based on whether civilians are "tired." Those of who are not in the thick of the fight should be fulfilling our duties as citizens by supporting our troops but also by making wise decisions about whether the blood and treasure we are expending will most effectively accomplish our national goals.

Rhonda S said:

As a very "average American" (I'm a school teacher) who clearly remembers that beautiful September morning in 2001 when other very average Americans were murdered by Islamic Fundementalists, I say keep fighting in the Korengal. As long as our brave men are taking the fight to THEM, the innocent children I work with every day will be safe.

In the book Junger clearly points out that Arabs and Pakistanis are coming across the border and flooding into the valley to fight. I say better in the Korengal than the airports, shopping malls, train stations etc. in America.

Lastly, what I really want to say is thank you. The pride I felt for my country and our soldiers as I read WAR was overwhelming. The press does a good job of making it sound as if the "average American" is against this war or that we're war weary...but I'd like to make two points about that. First of all, I think it's bullshit (excuse my French!). The average American appreciates and understands the ramifications if the war is not fought "over there". Second, for those Americans who truly are war weary, they can piss off. They have no right to be tired of a war they have not fought. Only those who have spilled blood, sweat, and tears on the battlefield have a right to "be tired of the war". When our soldiers have had enough, only then can those of us here in the states feel the same. God bless you all.

Permalink Reply by Brandon Young on June 10, 2010 at 6:47pm

Amen! I like you already Rhonda! Thank you for your support and having such a wonderful attitude!!! I also really like how you said, "its better to fight in the Korengal, than in airports and shopping malls." So much truth in that statement, because we were fighting mostly the villagers in that valley, and those villagers supported our enemies agenda, therefore, that makes them just as much our enemies, so in essence, we found the hornets nest, pushed deep inside, thought it was too much, and pulled back to secure bigger cities and support the countries growth...now, what sense does it make to take the fighting away from the enemy headquarters and invite it into the heavier populated areas?! Because for as long as we are in their country, they will always hunt down and try to kill the "infidel" (us). More "innocent" afghani's will surely end up as collateral damage. So why wouldn't our "brilliant generals" (sarcasm) keep the fighting (which is what happens in a war, believe it or not...) in a remote place where an entire valley is somehow, indirectly an enemy. And if there are so called "innocent civilians" there, (which I'm positive there is none) well, compare that collateral damage body count against the body count of the collateral damage in heavier populated areas and see which would would be greater, then take those counts, and figure the ratio of enemy combatants killed between the two locations...But then again...hey, I'm not the man in charge and there's probably a lot I don't know, but one big rule I learned in the army..."If it makes no sense...it must make perfect sense!"
Cheers!
B

Rhonda S said:

As a very "average American" (I'm a school teacher) who clearly remembers that beautiful September morning in 2001 when other very average Americans were murdered by Islamic Fundementalists, I say keep fighting in the Korengal. As long as our brave men are taking the fight to THEM, the innocent children I work with every day will be safe.

In the book Junger clearly points out that Arabs and Pakistanis are coming across the border and flooding into the valley to fight. I say better in the Korengal than the airports, shopping malls, train stations etc. in America.

Lastly, what I really want to say is thank you. The pride I felt for my country and our soldiers as I read WAR was overwhelming. The press does a good job of making it sound as if the "average American" is against this war or that we're war weary...but I'd like to make two points about that. First of all, I think it's bullshit (excuse my French!). The average American appreciates and understands the ramifications if the war is not fought "over there". Second, for those Americans who truly are war weary, they can piss off. They have no right to be tired of a war they have not fought. Only those who have spilled blood, sweat, and tears on the battlefield have a right to "be tired of the war". When our soldiers have had enough, only then can those of us here in the states feel the same. God bless you all.

Permalink Reply by Rhonda S on June 10, 2010 at 10:06pm

Brandon, thank you and I like your thinking too! Ha!

I agree with you. War is war. There will be fighting and unfortunately, there will be people who die that are innocent. It's not a pretty truth but that is the nature of war. I'm not sure there has ever been a war in the history of humans that has not resulted in some deaths of innocent people. The basic fact is this: War is nasty and horrific and it has to be so. If it was not so, what would be the incentive to avoid it? My generation seems to have a hard time with this concept but thankfully, our grandparents didn't. Had they not had the stomach for fighting, all of Europe (and perhaps the world) would been engulfed by National Socialism.

I think Americans have a giant case of attention deficit disorder and as a special education teacher who is an expert on that disorder, I feel confident in my diagnosis. This nation has forgotten how horrible it felt to get attacked. I think we have been lulled into a false sense of security (well, I haven't...but some of the other lemmings have). No attacks must mean no terrorists or people willing to give safe harbor to terrorists (Taliban, for example). But as I mentioned, what people don't realize is that the reason we don't have suicide bombers on the corner of Main Street, America is because they don't need to travel 6,000 miles to the USA when they have Americans in their back door they can fight. As long as our soldiers/marines are there, I can go about my business of teaching school children and not have to wonder if the next time I get on a train/bus/airplane will be my last.

Another point, I'd like to make is that I believe, as a student of psychology, that human behavior only changes when it is reinforced with consequences, good or bad. For example, if a child study hard and passes a test, it reinforces the notion that studying pays off. If we win this war and destroy the Taliban and their cronies, we reinforce that if you screw with us, there are harsh consequences. If we stay and finish the job (the battles we start), then it reinforces that Americans are willing to dig in and fight until the damn job is finished. It reinforces the fact that this country is NOT scared of spilling blood (you cannot win a war unless you're willing to spill blood...something I think our media has a problem with). However, if we leave, if we do not finish the things we start, it simply says that if you hold out long enough and engage in guerrilla style fighting, we will eventually lose our appetite for fighting and leave. Sorry - but that's just not acceptable to me.

Finally to the comment someone made about Tripoli. I'm not sure you can entirely compare The Barbary Wars to our War in Afghanistan because all things are not equal; however, since you brought it up, all I will say is that the Barbary Wars are an excellent example of why you must destroy your enemy. Appeasement in the case of the Barbary Wars did not work. We tried buying seaman back during the first war (appeasement really, because the Pasha just wanted money all along). During the second war, the treaties that were signed were reneged upon later. The result was more fighting which led to the colonization of those areas by the Brits and the French. Hmm, so I guess the point/lesson is...finish the job the first time so you don't have to go back later.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I say stay and fight, damnit. Stay and fight!
;
Brandon Young said:

Amen! I like you already Rhonda! Thank you for your support and having such a wonderful attitude!!! I also really like how you said, "its better to fight in the Korengal, than in airports and shopping malls." So much truth in that statement, because we were fighting mostly the villagers in that valley, and those villagers supported our enemies agenda, therefore, that makes them just as much our enemies, so in essence, we found the hornets nest, pushed deep inside, thought it was too much, and pulled back to secure bigger cities and support the countries growth...now, what sense does it make to take the fighting away from the enemy headquarters and invite it into the heavier populated areas?! Because for as long as we are in their country, they will always hunt down and try to kill the "infidel" (us). More "innocent" afghani's will surely end up as collateral damage. So why wouldn't our "brilliant generals" (sarcasm) keep the fighting (which is what happens in a war, believe it or not...) in a remote place where an entire valley is somehow, indirectly an enemy. And if there are so called "innocent civilians" there, (which I'm positive there is none) well, compare that collateral damage body count against the body count of the collateral damage in heavier populated areas and see which would would be greater, then take those counts, and figure the ratio of enemy combatants killed between the two locations...But then again...hey, I'm not the man in charge and there's probably a lot I don't know, but one big rule I learned in the army..."If it makes no sense...it must make perfect sense!"
Cheers!
B

Rhonda S said:

As a very "average American" (I'm a school teacher) who clearly remembers that beautiful September morning in 2001 when other very average Americans were murdered by Islamic Fundementalists, I say keep fighting in the Korengal. As long as our brave men are taking the fight to THEM, the innocent children I work with every day will be safe.

In the book Junger clearly points out that Arabs and Pakistanis are coming across the border and flooding into the valley to fight. I say better in the Korengal than the airports, shopping malls, train stations etc. in America.

Lastly, what I really want to say is thank you. The pride I felt for my country and our soldiers as I read WAR was overwhelming. The press does a good job of making it sound as if the "average American" is against this war or that we're war weary...but I'd like to make two points about that. First of all, I think it's bullshit (excuse my French!). The average American appreciates and understands the ramifications if the war is not fought "over there". Second, for those Americans who truly are war weary, they can piss off. They have no right to be tired of a war they have not fought. Only those who have spilled blood, sweat, and tears on the battlefield have a right to "be tired of the war". When our soldiers have had enough, only then can those of us here in the states feel the same. God bless you all.

Permalink Reply by Bill Day on June 11, 2010 at 10:43pm

I guess as the "someone" who brought up the fact that we have been fighting in the Middle East and North Africa for at least two centuries, on and off, I'll respond briefly. And let me say that I mean no disrespect for the troops, and if a contrary point of view is not welcome in this forum, I will be happy to take it elsewhere. I see the forum as a place to exchange views, but I do not want to be either disruptive or disrespectful.

But I do not believe that the equation is as simple as "no fighting in Korengal = bombs in American shopping malls." We chased Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan with a vengeance in 2001 and 2002, but we are still fighting there today. Is it because there is any imminent danger of Al Qaeda launching an attack from Afghanistan (particularly after they have metastasized and set up in Yemen and Pakistan and have any number of other failed states like Somalia to go to)? Rebecca points out that many of the fighters are coming from Pakistan. Maybe we need to deal with Pakistan in a more creative manner? And while we are analyzing the conflict, doesn't it bear recalling that the United States radicalized much of Afghanistan by supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets? Not to say that we were wrong, just that we sometimes have to face some severe unintended consequences of our actions. And do we at any point have to factor into our calculations the number of innocent Afghan lives that have been lost in this war?

One of the things I took away from the book is that just when you think you know what to expect, something else happens. Someone alerts the enemy to the platoon's presence accidentally. The gun barrel melts or the gun jams. The enemy shows up somewhere totally unexpected. If the war is that complicated at the platoon level, then how do you figure it out on the theater level?

My point is that there may be good reasons for fighting this war, including discouraging terrorism, increasing regional stability, and restoring peace and order to Afghanistan. But even the vast resources of the United States military are not sufficient to invade, conquer, pacify, and rebuild every hostile state in the Middle East, much less the world. So I think it's simplistic to simply say that we need to fight 'em in the Korengal so we don't fight 'em in the mall. My opinion is that if we are going to send American men (and in some cases women) into harm's way to fight and die for us, then we at least owe them careful thinking about the immediate gains on the tactical level and the overall gains of the conflict. Hit 'em now and hit 'em hard is emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't strike me as much of a strategy. I don't pretend to be a military tactician or strategist, but when we go to war, I want the politicians and the generals to tell me straight what we are doing and why and how they think we'll win and what it will cost -- in both blood and treasure. Mostly I think they give us B.S. because they think we are stupid. And what I admire about Sebastian Junger's book is that it reads like the straight dope -- no B.S.

Permalink Reply by Andi Fehl on June 25, 2010 at 11:44am

Brandon,

I'm with you. I think it's complete bullshit. You guys were right there in the middle of the hornets nest - stirring that shit up. Taking out a lot of bad guys. Keeping the fight at their doorstep instead of ours.

Returning to the US after years of being overseas, I am saddened at what America is becoming. So many Americans are oblivious to what's going on in the world. Seems like everyone is happy with their Big Mac and reality TV. Sad. I really hope that Sebastian's book and movie help shift the American focus on self back towards a sense of community. For me, that's what being an American is all about.

Andi

Permalink Reply by Bill Day on June 27, 2010 at 3:10am

I'm sorry, I don't understand what our blowing to pieces a little country far away has to do with our sense of community or our Big Macs. It is not a football game where our side gets extra points for "team spirit." And 9/11 notwithstanding, no one really believes that Afghanistan poses the kind of existential threat to the United States that a great power like Russia or China might.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the tragedy of this war, at least to date, is that all the bravery and sacrifice and firepower of our soldiers is not winning it. The Afghan government is corrupt, the Taliban have secure backing in Pakistan, and both the American and the Afghan people are ambivalent about having us there. For all that Rolling Stone may have mislead General McCrystal into being more honest than is prudent; Michael Hastings' article paints a devastating portrait of leadership in chaos and a mission in disarray. See http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236. Maybe Petraeus can fix it. I hope so.

I think it is severely misguided, however, to suggest that if we just kill enough "bad guys" we could win this war and sleep safely in our beds. The last time that an American Army deployed that kind of strategy was in the Indian genocide on the Western frontier. Neither today's Army, nor the American people, nor the world is going to tolerate that kind of strategy, even supposing we had any inclination to pursue it. Moreover, there are too many "bad guys" in the world for us to kill them all, and even if we could, as "War" points out, inevitable mistakes simply recruit new enemies for the other side.

I think there is a real question, as there was in Vietnam, about whether this war can be won given the constraints we are under. How are we going to defeat an enemy in Pakistan by fighting in Afghanistan? Can we actually win over the people when our partner is Hamid Karzai.? Does our counterinsurgency strategy even make sense?

When people are shooting at us, we need to shoot back. But we are better off in the long run if we can get them to stop shooting at us. In four years we managed to subdue the greatest existential military threat our country has ever known, and we do not have any further worries about the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan. It seems to me that the fact that we have spent twice as long fighting in a country most Americans couldn't even find on the map nine years ago shows a a failure of imagination and leadership, something which cannot be wholly overcome by even the fiercest and bravest troops.

Rolling Stone's article, like "War" in my opinion, is must reading for anyone concerned about what is going on in this war.

Andi Fehl said:

Brandon,

I'm with you. I think it's complete bullshit. You guys were right there in the middle of the hornets nest - stirring that shit up. Taking out a lot of bad guys. Keeping the fight at their doorstep instead of ours.

Returning to the US after years of being overseas, I am saddened at what America is becoming. So many Americans are oblivious to what's going on in the world. Seems like everyone is happy with their Big Mac and reality TV. Sad. I really hope that Sebastian's book and movie help shift the American focus on self back towards a sense of community. For me, that's what being an American is all about.

Andi

Permalink Reply by mouse on June 27, 2010 at 11:04pm

After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'm now aware of how much more there is in play here than I realized. I had no information regarding the internal constitution of Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and now that I do it has really brought home to me the concept of what a humanitarian war really is. I understand now why there is such resistance to having our troops leave the region, especially quickly and according to a specific timetable.

Given their history, it makes it all the more baffling why we encounter any resistance from the locals who are old enough to remember what it was like before we arrived in Afghanistan. You'd think they'd be far more cooperative across-the-board, in terms of helping protect us, giving us intel, and just taking full opportunity of all the improvements we're helping them make - and committing to maintaining those reformations and the safety of their beloved country.

Permalink Reply by Bill Day on June 27, 2010 at 11:20pm

Three quick thoughts:

1. I wish I had seen Meet the Press.

2. I think that many people believe we helped create the problem in Afghanistan well before 9/11 with our support of the Mujahadeen against the Soviets -- not for the good of Afghanistan but for our own strategic interests in the Cold War.

3. Think about how people often react to help they have not asked for. Even though we are doing some good things, we are still a foreign army that has taken over their country. How would you feel if a jackbooted housekeeper kicked in your door one day and said, "Your housekeeping is inadequate. From now on, we will live in your spare room and make sure everything in your house is immaculate."? Even if the house looked nicer, you might not feel too happy about the situation. I suspect that even the Afghans who appreciate the good things we are doing would just as soon have their country back as soon as possible.

mouse said:

After watching Meet the Press this morning, I'm now aware of how much more there is in play here than I realized. I had no information regarding the internal constitution of Afghanistan prior to 9-11, and now that I do it has really brought home to me the concept of what a humanitarian war really is. I understand now why there is such resistance to having our troops leave the region, especially quickly and according to a specific timetable.

Given their history, it makes it all the more baffling why we encounter any resistance from the locals who are old enough to remember what it was like before we arrived in Afghanistan. You'd think they'd be far more cooperative across-the-board, in terms of helping protect us, giving us intel, and just taking full opportunity of all the improvements we're helping them make - and committing to maintaining those reformations and the safety of their beloved country.

Permalink Reply by mouse on June 28, 2010 at 11:12am

Hi Bill,

The full Netcast is here (June 27th):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987534/

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page