rickjump1 0 #1 July 8, 2009 Dressing like women saved their asses.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_101Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 July 8, 2009 Quote: "The Americans didn't have female Marines with them to search the robed figures and make sure no men were among them in disguise."The new politically correct warfare by Barry O. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #3 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuote: "The Americans didn't have female Marines with them to search the robed figures and make sure no men were among them in disguise."The new politically correct warfare by Barry O. The policy is at least 3 years old, and older, iirc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #4 July 8, 2009 Females to search females was the SOP in 2002, so I doubt this is an example of Obama ruining America. Unless you want to argue that Bush ruined America's military efficacy? The Marines could have detained the "women" until female searchers could be brought in. Of course, I wasn't there, so I don't want to Monday morning it. On the other hand, blaming Obama is just stupid. I'm pretty sure he wasn't there, either. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #5 July 8, 2009 QuoteFemales to search females was the SOP in 2002, so I doubt this is an example of Obama ruining America. Unless you want to argue that Bush ruined America's military efficacy? The Marines could have detained the "women" until female searchers could be brought in. Of course, I wasn't there, so I don't want to Monday morning it. On the other hand, blaming Obama is just stupid. I'm pretty sure he wasn't there, either. I don't think he blames Obama, but it is a kind of political correctness when you go out of your way to walk on pins and needles concerning civilians: something about not engaging the enemy around homes etc. Apparently we are making a special effort to bolster our image. In an earlier conflict, we thought nothing of blowing up anything we took fire from and of course, civilian casualities were high (Vietnam). On the other hand, we did take the time to assist civilians to include dustoff.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #6 July 8, 2009 QuoteIn an earlier conflict, we thought nothing of blowing up anything we took fire from and of course, civilian casualities were high (Vietnam). And how'd that work out for us? He most clearly was blaming Obama, which is ridiculous. The whole point is that we've learned a lot about counter-insurgency since Vietnam. This time maybe we'll do a better job. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 July 8, 2009 QuoteThe Marines could have detained the "women" until female searchers could be brought in. The male Marines could have just lifted up the fucking burqas and checked them out directly. This is why terrorists win. We're afraid of offending women by lifting a veil. And they hide in women's clothing so they can kill us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 8, 2009 Here's a problem that those new millimeter airport scanners can solve! OTOH, is being a cross dresser conclusive proof one is an evil terrorist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 July 8, 2009 QuoteThe male Marines could have just lifted up the fucking burqas and checked them out directly. This is why terrorists win. We're afraid of offending women by lifting a veil, and they hide in women's clothing so they can kill us. And what if it had been women under there? Then all the lies the Taliban spreads about the US being there to rape the women and destroy Islam would have been confirmed, at least in the minds of the men of Helmand. You can't win a counterinsurgency just by killing the insugents. You need to also make sure not to create sympathy for the insugents' cause at the same time. It is the toughest type of war to fight, but if we're smart about it we might make headway. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe male Marines could have just lifted up the fucking burqas and checked them out directly. And what if it had been women under there? Gee, then nothing else would have happened. They could have gone on their way, with no harm done. QuoteThen all the lies the Taliban spreads about the US being there to rape the women and destroy Islam would have been confirmed, at least in the minds of the men of Helmand. If you let men who think like that define how you are going to fight, then once again, the terrorists will win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #11 July 8, 2009 Quote Here's a problem that those new millimeter airport scanners can solve! OTOH, is being a cross dresser conclusive proof one is an evil terrorist? I dunno - is the CIA a terrorist org?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #12 July 8, 2009 Why do you refuse to get it? I'm trying to explain it politely, but there is just no getting through to people who won't listen. "Men who think like that" define how we fight because they are the battlefield. They don't live on the battlefield, they ARE the batllefield. It is people who think like you, and refuse to change in the face of historical lessons, that doom us to failure. Next time you go to the airport and wait in line for an hour just to get strip searched, and then have to turn over your contact lens solution because it might be a bomb, ask yourself if the terrorists are winning or not. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #13 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe male Marines could have just lifted up the fucking burqas and checked them out directly. And what if it had been women under there? Gee, then nothing else would have happened. They could have gone on their way, with no harm done. Not likely. In all probability, it would have caused more problems than not checking did. One of the purpose of the burqa is to shield the female body from the sight of males. Given that the motivation for doing so is religious, your solution may even be arguably interpreted as a violation of Article 3 of the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention. QuoteQuoteThen all the lies the Taliban spreads about the US being there to rape the women and destroy Islam would have been confirmed, at least in the minds of the men of Helmand. If you let men who think like that define how you are going to fight, then once again, the terrorists will win. We are in their country trying to motivate change. It is by their standards that are troops are judged. Not sharing their ideology (and I certainly don't admire their ideology) doesn't change that any. Trying to impose our own ideology upon them, rather than allowing them to embrace change of their own accord, is a recipe for failure.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #14 July 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn an earlier conflict, we thought nothing of blowing up anything we took fire from and of course, civilian casualities were high (Vietnam). And how'd that work out for us? ..........After the Tet Offensive of 1968, most of the Viet Cong infrastructure was eliminated anyway, and we were fighting the NVA who contnued to build trenches and bunkers inside villages and steal the local rice so they were not exactly welcome either. I remember a division directive coming out that said we were to use fire and maneuver intead of artillery and airstrikes. At one point only the point man was allowed to carry a round in the chamber. Great for the morale; sure. After I left, things got a little hotter. I believe the directive probably was adjusted? I extended and saw the war from a different perspective as an advisor to a Vietnamese ranger battalion. At first, I had the feeling they were in no hurry to win until I realized they would still be here long after I went home. My counterpart was a Catholic from North Vietnam who fled after the French were defeated. No doubt he had a tough time in the re-education camps. I went back later as a helicopter pilot; came home just a little annoyed at giving everything away. We were on the eve of a massive bombing campaign that was about to put the North Vietnamese into the stone age when a little thing called Watergate tripped up Richard Nixon and brought it to an end. He most clearly was blaming Obama, which is ridiculous. The whole point is that we've learned a lot about counter-insurgency since Vietnam. This time maybe we'll do a better job. ..............Yes, and the neighborhood organizer hasn't a clue. Yes, I hope we have learned from past mistakes. I believe it is unfair to ask our men and women to die only to pull out (we do have practice at that).Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd what if it had been women under there? Then all the lies the Taliban spreads about the US being there to rape the women and destroy Islam would have been confirmed, at least in the minds of the men of Helmand. You can't win a counterinsurgency just by killing the insugents. You need to also make sure not to create sympathy for the insugents' cause at the same time. It is the toughest type of war to fight, but if we're smart about it we might make headway. If you let men who think like that define how you are going to fight, then once again, the terrorists will win. Is that something that you would consider a strategic blindspot of the last 7 years? How do we differentiate between the "truly irreconciables" who believe that and who must be killed, captured, or run out of the country, and the indigenous folks who are caught in the middle who also believe that? The latter category matters, imo, because they are often tacit supporters, if only by their silence, especially in context of [LouDiamond]'s comments in the "Marine Corps Operation in Southern Afghanistan" thread on the importance of establishing trust, if impermanent, and developing relations. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #16 July 9, 2009 Quote I believe it is unfair to ask our men and women to die only to pull out I agree, and it looks like Obama has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. QuoteYes, and the neighborhood organizer hasn't a clue. I disagree, but I'm sure you realize that no matter how clueless he may be WRT military strategy, he has put some very knowledgeable and impressive men in charge of the war effort. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 July 11, 2009 QuoteQuote I believe it is unfair to ask our men and women to die only to pull out I agree, and it looks like Obama has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. QuoteYes, and the neighborhood organizer hasn't a clue. I disagree, but I'm sure you realize that no matter how clueless he may be WRT military strategy, he has put some very knowledgeable and impressive men in charge of the war effort. Aaah. Thanks for the clarification there. When I first read the comment, the only thing that occurred to me was Pres Karzai as “neighborhood organizer” of Kabul (?) … I’ve heard him referred to as the “Mayor of Kabul” … or maybe the new US military commander in if Aghanistan (because of the whole ‘hearts & minds’ COIN focus (?)), which didn’t quite make sense to me either. Maybe President Obama doesn’t have a clue. Or maybe it’s a brilliant strategy he’s playing. Because thus far President Obama has done extraordinarily well in getting what he wants w/r/t major foreign policy goals. We got what we asked for from NATO w/r/t Afghanistan/ISAF. We got Pakistan to start taking seriously the Pakistani Taliban and start acting militarily against them (don’t tell the Pakistani populace that tho’; they’re dealing with their own domestic politics). Just this past week, we got Russia to agree to nuclear arms reductions without our having to agree to any changes in our planned missile defense programs, which President Prime Minister Putin had previously declared was an *absolute* requirement to even start talking about nuclear reductions. Some have even given him some tacit credit for the announcement of the “unilateral” cease-fires between Israel and Hamas, but I think that’s pushing it; if anything that was the change in administrations irrelevant of particular individual executive. There are a lot of things that I haven’t a clue about … it’s been pretty cool and rewarding (both experientially &, less often, monetarily) … the number of times that I’ve asked serious, thoughtful, & occasionally challenging questions around people who had lots of clues and I’ve gotten pulled into things, thereby acquiring “a clue” or two. YMMV. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #18 July 12, 2009 The use of canines would sort that out. They don't even need to be really close to tell the males from the females. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rivetgeek 0 #19 July 12, 2009 QuoteThe use of canines would sort that out. They don't even need to be really close to tell the males from the females. Muslims believe dogs to be filthy animals. That would not go over well. What they SHOULD have done is simply held them until a female arrived.~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 July 12, 2009 QuoteWe are in their country trying to motivate change. It is by their standards that are troops are judged. Not sharing their ideology (and I certainly don't admire their ideology) doesn't change that any. Trying to impose our own ideology upon them, rather than allowing them to embrace change of their own accord, is a recipe for failure. How did we defeat the Nazis? 1) By defeating them in battle and forcing surrender? 2) Or by letting them continue to exterminate Jews, rather than impose our own ideology on them? How did we defeat the Japs? 1) By defeating them in battle and forcing surrender? 2) Or by letting them continue to rape, pillage and plunder, rather than impose our own ideology on them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 July 12, 2009 QuoteHow did we defeat the Nazis? 1) By defeating them in battle and forcing surrender? 2) Or by letting them continue to exterminate Jews, rather than impose our own ideology on them? How did we defeat the Japs? 1) By defeating them in battle and forcing surrender? 2) Or by letting them continue to rape, pillage and plunder, rather than impose our own ideology on them? Did you miss the point entirely or simply choose to ignore it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #22 July 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe use of canines would sort that out. They don't even need to be really close to tell the males from the females. Muslims believe dogs to be filthy animals. That would not go over well. What they SHOULD have done is simply held them until a female arrived. How can hey be offended when they actually own dogs? This is NOT Iraq we are talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
