A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

[c1ue]

Before reacting, read all of the embedded articles.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/...ghan-disaster/

The PR disasters over the last three months — including pictures of American troops urinating on Afghan corpses, the burning of Qurans, and the massacre of Afghan civilians, including women and children, by at least one deranged American soldier — have morphed into a grand strategic debacle. From the perspective of the Afghan insurgency, these are gifts that will keep on giving.

Because these incidents have (1) increased the moral strength of the Afghan insurgents by handing them a coup to rally supporters and attract the uncommitted to their cause. They also widen the existing rift between the United States military and the Karzai government, which in any case is viewed by many Afghans as a corrupt, illegitimate, quisling lapdog of the US. And (2), they are visibly weakening the rapidly crumbling solidarity at home. Recent polls in America, for example, suggest the already overwhelming majority of Americans who now think it is time to exit the Afghan enterprise is growing again. Moreover, an increasing number of politicians and editorial boards are now beginning to reflect the views of the majority of American people. These incidents have magnified the already widespread perceptions among Afghans of a grotesque mismatch between the ideals we profess uphold and what we do.

Readers unfamiliar with the idea of grand strategy and the central importance of moral effects in any kind of conflict will find brief introduction to the criteria of a sensible grand strategy here. Use these criteria to judge for yourself whether or not our dismissal of these incidents as isolated occurrences and apologies will counter the damage described above.

You will see that these shifts at the moral level of conflict are about as bad as it gets when it comes to grand strategy. The emerging moral asymmetries between the US and its insurgent adversaries go well beyond trite comments about staying the war weariness and make a mockery of Defense Secretary Panetta’s wildly optimistic claim that we reached a turning point thanks to the 2011 surge. The US is leaving Afghanistan, the only questions left are how soon and how messy the departure will be?

Two recent essays help one grapple with some implications of these questions:

The first is an op-ed, “Why the Military needs to leave Afghanistan, and Soon,” by Phil Sparrow in the Sydney Morning Herald. Sparrow explains why people who argue we should remain in Afghanistan, because the Afghan people don’t want us to leave, simply don’t know what they are talking about. Certainly, the one per cent living in fortified compounds who have profited from the corruption unleashed by the torrent money we have poured into that impoverished country have been enriched by our presence, but what about the other 99 per cent?

In addressing this question, Sparrow demolishes the argument for staying the course. Bear in mind, it is written by a man who has lived in Afghanistan in local housing since 1999. He explains why the time to leave has arrived, and the sooner we depart the better. Sparrow’s op-ed was emailed to me by a highly educated Afghan friend from a distinguished Pashtun family, a man who is working for the restoration of a multicultural neutral Afghanistan, sans warlords and kleptocrats, whatever their ethnicity. He prefaced it by saying, “Finally, the truth.” Bear in mind, the individual making this comment is a longtime admirer of America, going back to our aid in the Helmand River irrigation project during the Eisenhower Administration. Read Sparrow’s essay and make your own judgement … then compare it to other points of view which can be found here and here, and ask yourself who is making the strongest argument.

“Afghanistan: A Gathering Menace” is a deeply troubling essay by Neal Shea in the current issue of the American Scholar. Shea has been writing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2006, where he has been spent most of his time embedded with NATO units.

He paints a grim portrait of how the confrontation dynamics of the Afghan guerrilla war are evolving violent psyches in some of the American troops who are being tasked to carry out the endless patrols and night raids. These search-and-destroy operations have morphed the aim of winning hearts and minds into a futile attrition strategy aimed at of killing insurgents faster than the local population can replace them … and according to Shea, the unfocused violence emerging from this strategy is having frightening side effects on the psychology of some of our soldiers.

If Shea is close to being right, the reality at the pointy end of the spear is very different from that perceived by the lounge lizards and neoconmen inside the beltway think tanks who calling for more time because our strategy is slowing winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people

Left hanging, but implicit in the title of his essay, is the question of what this menacing acculturation implies for the future of America. That is … what will happen when those afflicted return home, with no wars to expend their aggressive energies on? Add in the numbers of returning American mercenaries laid off by American contractors as their Afghan honey pot dries up, and the prospect becomes ominous indeed.

To be sure, Shea is only one observer at the microscopic level of organization, but he has been around, and if his observations are close to being right, the leaders of our military and government, who are debating when to leave, had better start thinking about how to contend with the kinds of post-combat stress problems posed by acculturation Shea describes, whatever its magnitude.

But that kind of contingency planning is not going to happen any time soon. The politicians and generals are too busy scrambling to save their reputations by devising some kind of face-saving exit strategy from a quagmire of their own making. (Shades of Nixon’s promise of ‘Peace with Honor’ in Vietnam?)

No one in Versailles on the Potomac is thinking about how to ameliorate the potentially explosive domestic blowback from the targeted killing strategy that landed America in this pickle. What will have happen, for example, to our demobilized young veterans, after they are downsized the milcrats in the Pentagon to make budget room for cold-war inspired turkeys like the $500 billion F-35 fighter program? Many of these soldiers and marines joined the all-volunteer professional military, because they needed a job — this is their profession. What skills can be transferred to the private sector? Guarding gated communities or serving in private armies owned by the super rich banksters, speculators, and globalization titans who helped so much to reduce their job prospects to begin with? What does this dilemma tell us about the wisdom of maintaining a large professional all-volunteer military in a democratic republic?

History has seen this peculiar kind of unemployment affliction before — for example, the unemployed hoplites in ancient Greece, selling their killing services to the highest bidder, or the unemployed German soldiers after World War I donning the brownshirts — and the results are never pretty.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

The many folks I know with considerable experience in Afghanistan are quickly tiring of the loss of their friends, the impact on their families, and the loss of national treasure.

The strategy that largely worked in Iraq to run high tempo, high velocity, high volume raids to get inside the insurgents OODA loop and insurgent incubation process can't be rubber stamped for Afghanistan.

The best expression I've heard yet that's popular among the Afghanis is:

"They have all the watches, but we have all the time."

"How soon and how messy" will probably be determined by the success of negotiations held between the US/Taliban which would likely include security guarantees(or at least assurances) that insurgent activity will be controlled to allow a more secure and dignified exit strategy.

It truly is a shame the Taliban could not find a dignified way around it's harbouring of OBL/AQ via Pashtunwali.

It's also a shame the US couldn't have used the Taliban as a conduit for Afghan development.....much like how a bunch of tourists get taken to the cleaners and overpay and potentially distort the local economy...from what I've read and been told the Taliban possessed some reasonably robust internal affairs control measures and feedback loops to reduce corruption and achieve more with less resources.

Compared with the corrupt Mayor of Kabul Karzai game of musical chairs that inevitably must end the Taliban look downright appealing.....as long as western society can look past the 18th century cultural mores we insist on instantly bringing into the 21st century.

Some additional concerns by US personnel include a sense of betrayal by the government in it's attack on military benefits, particularly on military retirement and healthcare....after a decade plus of war.

One area of concern for me is another example of the sense of isolation that has developed between the US military community and the US population in general.

Long gone are the days of national conscription and national service where a far larger chunk of the population served and far more people could relate directly and indirectly to veterans of national military service, their experience, and their role in society....they used to live throughout most every neighborhood, now not so much as the military moved to a professional service model a few decades ago and the overall numbers in uniform seriously declined with the demise of the Cold War and post Desert Storm "Peace Dividend".

I think this is exemplified by the ignorance of skills transfer into the private sector by many(maybe even most) civilian employers.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of military experience or exposure could tell you with absolute honesty the value many(though far from all) military veterans bring to the table of a civilian employer.

Management experience
Leadership Experience
Management of Human Resources
Ability to function and act effectively under considerable stress
Ability to function and act effectively in a nebulous environment
Discipline
Flexibility
Integrity
Cross Cultural Experience
Pre-vetting for criminal/character
etc.

All fundamental skills/experiences/characteristics that relate to most every business in existence.

It could easily be argued that one of the most difficult jobs in the world in recent years would be as a squad/section/platoon commander under contact with the enemy with embedded media in the "Three block war".

How many other positions for a 23 year old can see a single poor decision become an international incident in the media within minutes?

There are SURELY going to be a lot of blowback incidents from veterans in the coming decade or so for many reasons.

And unlike post WWII and up through Vietnam, a far smaller portion of society will have either direct/indirect experience serving or having family/friends who served to be able to relate to these problems when they occur

During the last 10 plus years the US military was at war, while American society was at The Mall.......there is truth in that......that disconnect between a professional military and society today compared with the draft military and wider understanding of it by society of the past.

I think the author really exemplifies this current disconnect by failing to understand at even a basic level what folks in the military do(besides killing) and what they can(and historically have) offered to civilian employers.

The author also fails to grasp the numbers serving in the military over the past 20 years or so.....we've seen a massive reduction in total headcount. Granted, military spending has been staggering due to 10+ years of conflict, but the total headcount has fallen considerably in recent decades.....even during wartime.

The biggest takeaway for me is the rift that has developed between US society and the military that serves it.

They used to be strongly intertwined, but a few decades later seem more like distant acquaintances or even strangers.

It's not worth commenting on the author's opinion of projects/spending like the F35...much like the the quote from Zhou Enlai's "too soon to tell" quote. I have no opinion other than that many(though there were also debacles like DIVADs) projects/spending strongly criticized in the 70's like the F15 turned out to provide absolute battlespace dominance for the US(and it's allies that fly it) in every conflict it entered.

I'm disappointed in the author's fear of ex-military fascist brownshirts. Maybe he should read up on the history of American post war veterans, such as the Bonus Army.

Even in a far darker economic climate US military veterans conducted themselves with dignity and integrity in peaceful demonstration.

Some of the names involved in the forced removal of The Bonus Army might give one pause:

MacArthur
Patton
Eisenhower(opposed violence against Bonus Army and recommended MacArthur NOT commit to the operation, but ultimately supported it)

Personally I have far, far more fear of a modern day Kent State committed by paramilitary public/private law enforcement than I fear any organized current/prior service military incident.

How many people have close family/friends/neighbours/co-workers in the military or are veterans?

I'd bet just about anything there's far fewer opportunities today for most folks on this forum than there would have been 10 or 20 years ago....so we are left with 2nd hand and 3rd hand opportunities to read/analyze/form opinions and fewer opportunities to receive raw product right from the source.

[c1ue]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

Anyone with a reasonable amount of military experience or exposure could tell you with absolute honesty the value many(though far from all) military veterans bring to the table of a civilian employer.

I'm quite certain many veterans bring all sorts of positive skills, but you didn't comment on whether the points made by Neal Shea might or might not be also true: that the types of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan either encourage or concentrate psychopathic behavior/individuals.

It is quite unclear to me how institutionalized brutality and murder of people constitutes a positive job skill. In the context of a defensive war, it is unavoidable, but it is quite unclear to me just how 'defensive' the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts are.

And to be fair, in an environment where the enemy is indistinguishable from the civilian population, it is perfectly understandable that those over there cease to bother at some point.

But the fairness isn't the issue. The question being raised is whether this callous disregard, if real, is in any way of benefit to American society and/or whether this behavior has ramifications long after said veterans return home.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

I'm quite certain many veterans bring all sorts of positive skills, but you didn't comment on whether the points made by Neal Shea might or might not be also true: that the types of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan either encourage or concentrate psychopathic behavior/individuals.

Conflict is conflict is conflict.....there is nothing totally unique to the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan that turns people into B-Film mass murderers.

And it further exemplifies the ignorance that more and more folks have regarding the military that serve them as the distance between a professional military and society grows compared to a conscript military and society of the past.

Both the author and yourself portray(in my perception) a sense that anyone exposed to conflict is somehow "infected".

Do you or the author have any idea of the structural makeup of a large scale operational deployment?

Specifically how many out of a 100 do you think would be carrying a weapon tasked with seeking out and closing with the enemy?

How many out of a 100 do you think will be working in a Forward Operation Base eating Dunkin' Donuts?

They are quite relevant questions.

Those that aren't so trained, equipped, and tasked(which would be the vast majority) would likely face less(possibly far less) stimulus to "encourage or concentrate psychopathic behavior" than your average high crime inner city police officer, paramedic, or social worker.

So shouldn't we categorize/label/segregate inner city cops/paramedics/social workers exposed to far greater levels of psychological trauma on a regular basis than the vast majority of military personnel
not exposed to regular violence/trauma when deployed?

It is quite unclear to me how institutionalized brutality and murder of people constitutes a positive job skill.

Are you genuinely serious with this comment?

In my opinion, your strong bias against the current conflict set and your lack of personal relationships with current/recent serving military personnel(I assume this based on your post history) to offer some anecdotal and first hand texture to fine tune your perspective in the discussion is telling......either that or you're just "taking the piss" with this point.

And to be fair, in an environment where the enemy is indistinguishable from the civilian population, it is perfectly understandable that those over there cease to bother at some point.

But the fairness isn't the issue. The question being raised is whether this callous disregard, if real, is in any way of benefit to American society and/or whether this behavior has ramifications long after said veterans return home.

Of course there will be long-term ramifications....just like with every conflict the nation has faced since it's inception....and it's worth noting this is not the first time they have faced a nebulous threat environment.

Some folks who are psychologically injured(as well as physically injured) from a decade+ worth of conflict will need the support of society to fulfill the contract made when they enlisted in service to their country.

Although it's worth noting that the number of people claiming to have served in Vietnam seeking medical/financial support far exceeded the number that actually did serve.

So I would caution anyone using "accurate statistics" to measure the effects of war on veterans.

This is not to understate issues faced by veterans in the past and future environments.....but to acknowledge the many, many opportunists who have tainted the numbers.

The author's intentional choice of framing returning veterans' plight today as a potential fascist brown shirt future and completely failing to reference past performance of veterans transitioning into civilian life in previous conflicts displays poor research skills or borderline yellow journalism.

And unfortunately it will be absorbed as true by many, due to my previously mentioned concern about the growing divide between society and a professional military which has shrunk considerably in recent decades that serves it.

[makimanos]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

<>
Actually there is a very well paid job for most of them. Mercenaries.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

<>>
Actually there is a very well paid job for most of them. Mercenaries.

Most?

No offense, but I think this would be another example of the growing divide between society and a shrinking professional army in recent decades.

If we were referring to black folks, would we have used the example of of cotton picking jobs?

If we were referring to gay people, would we have used the example of hairdressing and interior design jobs?

If we were referring to Mexican people, would we have used the example of lawnmowing jobs?

If we were referring to Native American/Indian people, would we have used the example of casino jobs?

I would also ask the question as to how YOU define the word mercenary?

I'd also refer to how the world generally refers to the word mercenary.

Are bodyguards mercenaries? If so, then why is the word bodyguard far more commonly used than mercenary?
Amongst the more high paid positions would be members of close protection teams in very high threat environments tasked with keeping various VIPs(diplomats/executives/NGOs) safe(r). Their role is neither offensive/defensive.....it's strictly protective...to advise and better ensure the safety and well being of the party they are charged with protecting.

Are armed guards at domestic key points such as power stations, dams, airports, telecommunication nodes, hospitals, shopping centres, schools, embassies, etc considered mercenaries in the US? Not really.....so the same description should apply in Iraq and Afghanistan....armed security for key point protection...key word being protection. Many of these jobs(depending on threat/value/importance) have gone the way of lower order manufacturing jobs....with "offsourcing" occurring....such as Ugandans/Fijiians being a popular and more affordable choice compared with the often more expensive white western former soldier.

Would a fuel handler or distribution/logistics specialist be considered a mercenary? Many(actually most) of the military contracting positions available have a decidedly non-military description.....bar the often remote/less comfortable/less secure environment they operate in/from.

Would you classify a truck driver as a mercenary? Of course not, but that's a good example of one of the most common contracting jobs over the past decade.

Are there real, genuine mercenaries in the traditional/conventional/appropriate use of the word?

Could some former western military personnel be easily described as such?

Absolutely....in the rather small and nebulous world of non-state actors playing war....best exemplified by western intervention in Libya where a small number of westerners on the ground with specialist skillsets, working alongside allied forces from the Gulf, provided training as well as command/control/communication/planning assistance to the annointed group replacing Qaddafi.

Such arrangements provide deniability no matter how implausible it may seem to the seriously interested observer.

So yes, mercenaries do exist......the French Foreign Legion being probably the best known state sanctioned example that serves a specific purpose for France.

There's even an effort by former Blackwater, former Xe, now named R2 outfit to fulfill a contract for the UAE to provide a 2 battalion unit that would perfectly fit the description of contract mercenary that we could probably all agree on.

But the vast majority of private military contracting positions are not much different from corporate outsourcing.

With the considerable drawdown in total headcount in the US military in recent decades combined with sustained operations in multiple theatres leaves few options(besides NOT sustaining foreign operations) than to outsource peripheral and even former core functions no longer considered core.

To enlighten you a bit.

For many who served in uniform as soldiers/sailers/airmen and who now serve in a broad spectrum of contracting roles calling one a mercenary is akin to calling an African American a nigger, calling a Mexican a wetback, and calling a Pacific islander a coconut. They are all offensive words to their respective communities.

My apologies for the use of those words....I'll use them only once to try and broaden perspective.

Once again I blame the growing divide between society and a shrinking professional military. The US military is clearly no longer synonymous with US society.

I do not for a second desire any minority group to be idolized or put on a pedestal......we have seen that patronizing and pandering behavior towards the military in various TV commercials over the past decade and I personally find it, at best, incredibly distasteful.....but I'm also not keen on seeing any fringe minority groups(and that's what I sort of see the US military becoming) being treated with disdain through ignorance and isolation.

No offense intended......but the growing divide between society and the US military is exemplified on this forum in your last post.

[makimanos]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

I agree that there is a divide between society and the military, but this is a worldwide problem and it is most visible in armies that they are in constant conflict. But this divide exists only with the personnel that are at the front line and doesn't apply to the logistics lines.
I define a mercenary as someone who works for a private army outside his country and bears arms, although I agree that this is a broad
issue and must be used in brackets.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

I agree that there is a divide between society and the military, but this is a worldwide problem and it is most visible in armies that they are in constant conflict. But this divide exists only with the personnel that are at the front line and doesn't apply to the logistics lines.
I define a mercenary as someone who works for a private army outside his country and bears arms, although I agree that this is a broad
issue and must be used in brackets.

I don't know if I agree if it's a worldwide problem.....an example I could give would be Singapore.

In Singapore, national service(Singapore has national conscription) in the military is like a right of passage.

It's benefits include aligning the interests of it's multiethnic society and providing a sense of ownership/nationalism in the nation(without going overboard in a bad direction).

Singapore had a rough history of ethnic conflict in the not so distant past....including a perceived requirement to bring in Ghurkas early on to beat each ethnicity with near equal abandon when they stepped out of line.

I don't necessarily think Singapore's National Service solution would work in the US or here in NZ without considerable disruption and realignment(and national conscription has it's down sides too) but it seems to work quite well for them as I've had a lot of exposure to Singaporeans both in and out of military service.

I would agree that in the west we are seeing an average overall growing divide between society and respective military as pretty much every western nation's military has drawn down considerably in the last couple of decades post Cold War, with the last ten years not even a speed bump in the decline of total head count.

In China there's a Mandarin expression often used by parents that goes along the lines of "You don't use your best iron to make nails." referring to children and the military.

I would also agree on the "bear arms" bit if by bear arms they are operating in a traditional offensive role......I would disagree if their singular role is to provide close personal protection(bodyguard) for individuals and small groups in need of security to perform their job.

Where I would personally agree with the term mercenary and where it could get a bit pedantic would be in those who are paid to ensure the continuity of a regime.....a high paid Praetorian Guard.

[wayiwalk]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

I actually have alot more indirect contact with people in the military than I suspect I would if I was in my 30's to 40's with a draft type military. I know several reservists who probably would not have stuck with the military had it not been for the opportunity to serve with well educated individuals who held positions of authority outside of the military.

Maybe it depends on who you typically connect with in your daily life. I presently work as an environmental engineer (project manager) and have worked with staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have spent one or more tours in either Iraq or Afghanistan; managed project staff that included a coworker who could not achieve appropriate recognition for his value at our company and later left so that he could focus on opporutnities within the world as a reservist.

I remember when the first bad stories were coming out of Iraq of misdoings and crimes by our military, and how we'd hear the whole "baby killers" type of accusations of our volunteers in general, and would think, the authors of such pieces really don't know of who they are writing of. I remember thinking, are you kidding - "they" are "us"....and often, the best of us, particularly in officer positions.

The author of the piece above does seem to have a little blindness that lacks from enough personal connection to the volunteers stateside.

I'm sure we will suffer some former soilders in their return to civillian lives doing awful things - but come on - atrocities are commited by non-veterans every day, as well. By not truly dealing with the gangs in this country, we are also allowing such minded citizens to advance a violent way every day.

Last point though, and this is in support of the outcomes suggested by the author - too many tours especially under such circumstances in Afghanistan....many front line soilders, especially those there of the last 5 years, will really need our help to reintegrate into society.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

I actually have alot more indirect contact with people in the military than I suspect I would if I was in my 30's to 40's with a draft type military. I know several reservists who probably would not have stuck with the military had it not been for the opportunity to serve with well educated individuals who held positions of authority outside of the military.

Maybe it depends on who you typically connect with in your daily life. I presently work as an environmental engineer (project manager) and have worked with staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers, who have spent one or more tours in either Iraq or Iran; managed project staff that included a coworker who could not achieve appropriate recognition for his value at our company and later left so that he could focus on opporutnities within the world as a reservist.

I remember when the first bad stories were coming out of Iraq of misdoings and crimes by our military, and how we'd hear the whole "baby killers" type of accusations of our volunteers in general, and would think, the authors of such pieces really don't know of who they are writing of. I remember thinking, are you kidding - "they" are "us"....and often, the best of us, particularly in officer positions.

The author of the piece above does seem to have a little blindness that lacks from enough personal connection to the volunteers stateside.

I'm sure we will suffer some former soilders in their return to civillian lives doing awful things - but come on - atrocities are commited by non-veterans every day, as well. By not truly dealing with the gangs in this country, we are also allowing such minded citizens to advance a violent way every day.

Last point though, and this is in support of the outcomes suggested by the author - too many tours especially under such circumstances in Afghanistan....many front line soilders, especially those there of the last 5 years, will really need our help to reintegrate into society.

I often equate contact with folks serving in the military much like having contact with folks working at say WalMart, Amazon.com, Apple, GE, or Google....you can receive some quite valuable "ground truth" and coalface reality....both good and bad that provides some texture, litmus test, or BS detector compared with media reportage.

I do see the military services as recruiting SOME of the very best and brightest from society......as well as their share of retards, for lack of a more politically correct and appropriate term.

There have been times where the US military has done a very poor job of recruiting and has suffered from the consequences....much like I saw and warned while working with Amazon.com in the late 90's that during a period of extremely high and fast growth......poor recruiting will have negative consequences down the track...and did until the mistakes were mostly(but not entirely) moved along. The same with every high performing large organization.....you get the great ones and a lot of good ones if you do it right.....and when you make mistakes you get some of the really bad ones too.

As far as the tempo of deployment, I can provide just one very recent example of a friend in the US Army I spent some time working with in SEA......shortly he will start his 5th deployment since 2002. Each of his deployments have lasted a minimum of just under 12 months...and a maximum of just over 15 months......so when he completes this upcoming deployment(he calls it his farewell tour) he will have spent between 5 and 5.5 years deployed in the last 10...more than half of the past decade away from friends and family.

In his case(and there are quite a few like him) he will have spent more time deployed and more time(days) in contact with the enemy(combat) that ANY past conflict in American history.

He's OK, no PTSD, he doesn't beat his wife, he doesn't beat his kids, he's not suicidal, he probably drinks a little more than average during his personal/down time....he's mostly just tired.....exhausted would probably be a better description.....and looking for a big change...hence the "farewell tour" running joke.

I agree "they" are "us"......it's just that there are fewer of "them" than their used to be......Everyone knows someone who works or worked for McDonalds...but does everyone know someone who works or worked for Google?

I thought Google said they'd do no evil?

The interweb tells me Google's doing some dodgy stuff.......but I don't know anyone working at Google to provide a ground truth perspective to compare and contrast what I'm reading from bloggers about all that Google evilness.

[c1ue]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

Conflict is conflict is conflict.....there is nothing totally unique to the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan that turns people into B-Film mass murderers.

Given that I noted specifically that war is war, the above statement is nonsensical.

What I also said was that in a defensive war, such sacrifices are unavoidable and necessary, but that Afghanistan and Iraq are not clearly defensive wars.

And it further exemplifies the ignorance that more and more folks have regarding the military that serve them as the distance between a professional military and society grows compared to a conscript military and society of the past.

Both the author and yourself portray(in my perception) a sense that anyone exposed to conflict is somehow "infected".

I'd say that you're reading far too much again. If you care to re-read what I actually wrote, I did not say anything about infection nor was anything said about all serving military personnel.

I did say that such situations as 'search and destroy' either could bring out negative tendencies in soldiers or did reward those who already had such active tendencies.

I did not, nor did the Shea, say that all soldiers were this way.

Equally I call you out specifically to say whether sociopaths exist in the military or not.

You seem to be implying that they don't, and that military service as those who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq are performing has no long term psychological effect.

The PTSD and suicide statistics would seem to indicate otherwise.

Do you or the author have any idea of the structural makeup of a large scale operational deployment?

Specifically how many out of a 100 do you think would be carrying a weapon tasked with seeking out and closing with the enemy?

Given that your original premise to this statement was wrong: i.e. that either Shea or myself were commenting on all serving military personnel as opposed to a subset, this is quite irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 in 1000 are turned into psychopaths by service, this would still be a major society issue.

As for the ratio of guns at the front vs. support personnel, the US military is notable in its 'fat'ness. I believe the ratio is around 3 support to 1 shooter.

Those that aren't so trained, equipped, and tasked(which would be the vast majority) would likely face less(possibly far less) stimulus to "encourage or concentrate psychopathic behavior" than your average high crime inner city police officer, paramedic, or social worker.

I guarantee you that no soldier has to go through a bureaucratic nightmare as well as the highly political (not necessarily in a good way) oversight process when they shoot someone or destroy something as a policeman does.

I also am fairly sure the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have to justify individual bullet counts, nor do they have to worry about angry Afghans and Iraqis getting lawyers and filing multi-million dollar wrongful death/police brutality lawsuits.

Thus while I fully agree that the negative psychological aspects of seeing human death and suffering would be present in many city service personnel, the sociopathic aspects in police/paramedic personnel in US cities are far better controlled.

In my opinion, your strong bias against the current conflict set and your lack of personal relationships with current/recent serving military personnel(I assume this based on your post history) to offer some anecdotal and first hand texture to fine tune your perspective in the discussion is telling......either that or you're just "taking the piss" with this point.

This is amusing.

You are trying to say that no brutality or excessive force is/was being used in Iraq/Afghanistan.

That troops that are under constant stress from a faceless enemy that attacks using IEDs and then hiding behind noncombatants don't ever start lumping all ragheads into the same bucket.

I believe, mostly hopefully, that most of them are trying to do the right thing, but I also know full well that most of them are young with little world experience.

Your commentary again is taking the view that all serving troops are lily-white, completely professional, and superhuman in their ability to subjugate their human nature.

I disagree.

As for your commentary on "relationships with serving military personnel" - you again make assumptions which are incorrect. I actually do have close relationships with a number of past and present serving members of the armed forces, and this is exactly what forms my views.

For every 5 or 6 who are perfectly normal and have successfully integrated over their serving experiences, there is one who isn't. To refuse to recognize this is a disservice to everyone especially those who fall into the latter category.

The author's intentional choice of framing returning veterans' plight today as a potential fascist brown shirt future and completely failing to reference past performance of veterans transitioning into civilian life in previous conflicts displays poor research skills or borderline yellow journalism.

I agree that to link large numbers of serving troops with National Socialism is to go too far, but I equally believe that to dismiss hundreds of thousands of troops returning to a nation with 13% official unemployment for 20-24 and 9% unemployment for 25-34 (with U6 for both categories about 20%), given 60% of serving military are 22 to 30, is equally to be too dismissive.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

Given that I noted specifically that war is war, the above statement is nonsensical.

Again with the perpetual desire to "win" arguments. I say "conflict is conflict", you say "war is war" yet what I say is nonsense. I sincerely hope your real world people skills are significantly better than your online people skills.

I did say that such situations as 'search and destroy' either could bring out negative tendencies in soldiers or did reward those who already had such active tendencies.

You may wish to update your choices of flash military jargon words.....I don't think search and destroy has been used in the popular lexicon since the early 70's.

Equally I call you out specifically to say whether sociopaths exist in the military or not.

Isn't it obvious? Do sociopaths work at Google? Do sociopaths work at General Electric? Do sociopaths work for Boeing? Do sociopaths work for police departments? Do sociopaths work for government? Do sociopaths work in health care? Of course they do. All each organization can do is their best to filter them out or offer them psychological support once identified within the org.

You seem to be implying that they don't, and that military service as those who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq are performing has no long term psychological effect.

You enjoy reading WAY too much into what I write. To the point of attempting to put words in my mouth. I have clearly stated that there are long term psychological costs in EVERY conflict.

It is also irrelevant because it doesn't matter if 1 in 1000 are turned into psychopaths by service, this would still be a major society issue.

It IS relevant.....just as it's relevant to look at domestic law enforcement/health care/essential support services.

Who's more likely to develop PTSD? Front line police or police admin back at the station?
Who's more likely to develop PTSD? Front line paramedics or a hospital pharmaceutical clerk?
Who's more likely to develop PTSD? A frontline rifleman who was actually in contact with the enemy or an IT support person who never left the FOB?

As for the ratio of guns at the front vs. support personnel, the US military is notable in its 'fat'ness. I believe the ratio is around 3 support to 1 shooter.

"notable in it's 'fat'ness"

but has "tooth to tail" of 1/3

That's a considerable contradiction.

I guarantee you that no soldier has to go through a bureaucratic nightmare as well as the highly political (not necessarily in a good way) oversight process when they shoot someone or destroy something as a policeman does.

"I guarantee you that no soldier"

Guarantee?

How can you guarantee it?

Can you define and scope your guarantee?

I can personally guarantee from my own personal experience and the personal experience of many, many, many soldiers I know from many countries including the US that every shooting brings a bureaucratic oversight and I know people personally who've been sucked into highly charged and politicized oversight when media have gotten it wrong(intentionally or unintentionally).

In this comment you are not only completely wrong but incredibly arrogant in your continued desire to attempt to win rather than learn and share on this forum.

Completely unacceptable.

I also am fairly sure the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have to justify individual bullet counts, nor do they have to worry about angry Afghans and Iraqis getting lawyers and filing multi-million dollar wrongful death/police brutality lawsuits.

At least you're not making any more guarantees

I can guarantee from my own personal experience and the personal experience of many, many, many soldiers I know from many countries including the US that we are fully accountable for every round of ammunition and every item of controlled stores.

The discharge of a weapon or use of a controlled store like a hand grenade or flashbang is either authorized or unauthorized. If unauthorized, there are consequences...often quite serious consequences. I personally know of incidents where seemingly quite minor UDs(unathorized discharges) led to very serious consequences.

Every professional western military used what are called ROE Cards(Rules of Engagement) that are agreed to by the host nation as well as the deployed military force and their respective government completed by a bunch of lawyers including those with considerable experience with the laws of armed conflict.

And again to prove I don't think the US or any other military is perfect and superhuman.....no system is perfect, but it is one that is highly, highly regulated, very comprehensive, and works reasonably well for such a complex and nebulous environment.

Thus while I fully agree that the negative psychological aspects of seeing human death and suffering would be present in many city service personnel, the sociopathic aspects in police/paramedic personnel in US cities are far better controlled.

Really? So you are a subject matter expert on psychological support services for front line police/fire/medical as well?

I have a friend who works as a military Psychologist. I've always tried to use the rare downtime I spend with her to pick her brain on such topics. My 2nd hand understanding in my discussions with someone who goes downrange every time there's an incident, runs pre deployment psych briefs and evaluations, runs post deployment decompression briefs and evaluations, and long-term followup would differ from your perception. I think I'll take her word for it over yours. I also got to see first hand a number of post catastrophe efforts at psychological support as well as organic psychological support services for Police and Fire personnel down here(not the US). Everything I've seen and experienced first hand as well as 2nd hand reports differs from your quite definitive statement.

But what do I know.

This is amusing.

You are trying to say that no brutality or excessive force is/was being used in Iraq/Afghanistan.

"YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY that no brutality or excessive force is/was being used in Iraq/Afghanistan."

Specifically how am I "trying to say"?

You have an absolutely horrid habit of trying to place words directly in my mouth that is simply unacceptable.


Your commentary again is taking the view that all serving troops are lily-white, completely professional, and superhuman in their ability to subjugate their human nature.

How exactly have I done this?

What specifically have I posted where I claim "all serving troops are lily-white, completely professional, and superhuman"

If I haven't, then I strongly caution you on continuing with your pattern of behavior in this regard and another retraction for your unending and aggressive efforts to ram your words in my mouth would be appropriate.

As for your commentary on "relationships with serving military personnel" - you again make assumptions which are incorrect. I actually do have close relationships with a number of past and present serving members of the armed forces, and this is exactly what forms my views.

I would be very interested to learn about your relationships with past and present serving military personnel.

Especially in light of the fact, in my perception, that you take such an incredibly dim, dark, and negative view on all things regarding the US military based on your post history. Maybe you should expand your network a bit for a broader anecdotal set.

For every 5 or 6 who are perfectly normal and have successfully integrated over their serving experiences, there is one who isn't.

So that's 1 out of 5 or 6? Is this your opinion as a self taught subject matter expert? Or based on what and why exactly?

I would completely agree that not everyone who leaves the military is able to integrate successfully back into society. I wouldn't want you to attempt to portray me as having said that everyone who exits the military is super awesome and perfect.

But even with considerable experience both in and out of the military, and having a large peer group network of current and prior service personnel I'm not arrogant enough to pass personal judgement on the % of successful versus unsuccessful service personnel reintegrating into the greater civilian society because so many factors such as overall employment/unemployment, geographic location, military transferrable skillsets, economic climate, etc all play factors in it.

Yep..some people do not reintegrate into society after military service....in both wartime and peacetime

To refuse to recognize this is a disservice to everyone especially those who fall into the latter category.

I fully recognize how the process of transforming from military to civilian works.....I have seen it, I do see it, and will continue to see it with my large and very active peer group. I can personally count over 30 people I know well having done so in the last 12 months and the number climbs far higher when accounting for acquaintances.

I haven't "refuse(d) to recognize this" and your accusation I have is again a terrible example of your incredibly poor interpersonal skills on this forum which you fail to adequately justify.

I agree that to link large numbers of serving troops with National Socialism is to go too far, but I equally believe that to dismiss hundreds of thousands of troops returning to a nation with 13% official unemployment for 20-24 and 9% unemployment for 25-34 (with U6 for both categories about 20%), given 60% of serving military are 22 to 30, is equally to be too dismissive.

I believe you lack a fair and reasonable understanding and perspective of the US military. I believe your post history supports this as well as your unending attacks on me and attempts to inappropriately portray me as some unquestioned supporter and cheerleader of everything related to the US military, when I have actually gone to great lengths on multiple occasions to successfully refute and state clearly my positions, yet you simply don't stop with the inaccurate portrayal.

You claim the US military "fat", while in the same post claiming a short "tooth to tail" ratio, while finishing your post with a fear of "dismiss(ing) hundreds of thousands" that is not likely to occur based on current post Iraq/Afghan global threat and security environment. Of course there's going to be a drawdown, it's already happening and well underway. You would know this if you genuinely have any personal relationships with current service personnel who are seeing the clear signals.

Once again, I'm happy to debate/discuss most anything with you and everyone else on this forum, but I find your posts to be incredibly abrasive and arrogant at times.

And it's a shame......do I put you on ignore if it continues.....or do I allow it to continue even further and report it to management if you don't stop with your pattern of attempting to portray me as some sort of no questions asked war loving supporter of the US military to fit your convenient world view.

I'm quickly tiring of this c1ue.....I ask that you tone down your inner Alan Dershowitz and try to channel your inner Dale Carnegie.

[c1ue]

Re: A series of interesting (and opposing) views on Afghanistan

Again with the perpetual desire to "win" arguments. I say "conflict is conflict", you say "war is war" yet what I say is nonsense. I sincerely hope your real world people skills are significantly better than your online people skills.

Again with your inability to read what written:

I never said anywhere that all war is evil or bad.

I never said anywhere that all war was avoidable.

I never said anywhere that war produces B film mass murderers.

To repeat: s**t happens in war. People get messed up in the head as well as in the body. In a defensive war, this is unavoidable and acceptable. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it is very unclear to me that these wars are necessary, and if so the people getting messed up in the head and body are undergoing this for no good reason.

If you cannot understand what is written, then you should develop a thicker skin because you're going to keep finding insult where there is none.

You may wish to update your choices of flash military jargon words.....I don't think search and destroy has been used in the popular lexicon since the early 70's.

Simply because some military public relations officer changes the term, does not in fact change the act or result.

Isn't it obvious? Do sociopaths work at Google? Do sociopaths work at General Electric? Do sociopaths work for Boeing? Do sociopaths work for police departments? Do sociopaths work for government? Do sociopaths work in health care? Of course they do. All each organization can do is their best to filter them out or offer them psychological support once identified within the org.

While sociopaths should in theory and likely in fact work anywhere, sociopaths in the above organizations don't get rewarded directly for callous disregard of human beings expressed via bullets, missiles, and bombs.

Equally so sociopaths in the above organizations are, by and large, not given the explicit excuse of 'following orders' and 'collateral damage' and so forth when undertaking the above activities.

Does this mean it never happens? Of course not. I am quite certain there are police SWAT team members who like to shoot darkies. But a police SWAT team member who does so knows full well he better be ready for serious bureaucratic investigation.

Given the top to bottom refusal of the US military and US government to admit that any non-combatants are being killed by Predator drones, much less the vast numbers of dead Afghans and Iraqis killed via other means, I posit that the situation in the military is completely different.

Perhaps you can demonstrate differently. I would love to see countervailing evidence.

You enjoy reading WAY too much into what I write. To the point of attempting to put words in my mouth. I have clearly stated that there are long term psychological costs in EVERY conflict.

So what exactly are you arguing given several re-statements of the exact same comment - which you seem to object to - to wit:

War does bad things to combatants.
Iraq and Afghanistan are wars, and are not clearly necessary.
Therefore the negative effects on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not clearly necessary.

It IS relevant.....just as it's relevant to look at domestic law enforcement/health care/essential support services.

Who's more likely to develop PTSD? Front line police or police admin back at the station?
Who's more likely to develop PTSD? Front line paramedics or a hospital pharmaceutical clerk?
Who's more likely to develop PTSD? A frontline rifleman who was actually in contact with the enemy or an IT support person who never left the FOB?

Again, your inability to understand what was written results in yet another restatement:

Police, firemen, whatever are performing necessary and unavoidable functions. American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are not clearly performing necessary and unavoidable functions. They have at some point (Bush 1 Iraq, Cleaning out Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan), but it seems quite clear to me that now they are not.

"notable in it's 'fat'ness"

but has "tooth to tail" of 1/3

That's a considerable contradiction.

The only reason the ratio is only 1/3 is because of the vast usage of civilian contractors. Most other nations don't get McDonald's, air conditioning, and so forth when deploying troops abroad.

"I guarantee you that no soldier"

Guarantee?

How can you guarantee it?

Can you define and scope your guarantee?

I can personally guarantee from my own personal experience and the personal experience of many, many, many soldiers I know from many countries including the US that every shooting brings a bureaucratic oversight and I know people personally who've been sucked into highly charged and politicized oversight when media have gotten it wrong(intentionally or unintentionally).

In this comment you are not only completely wrong but incredibly arrogant in your continued desire to attempt to win rather than learn and share on this forum.

Completely unacceptable.

You say this is untrue, then demonstrate it.

I have yet to see a single instance (thus far) of a soldier being publicly reprimanded for excessive force. Even the latest incident involving Staff Sergeant Bales is being downplayed as an 'unfortunate psychological accident' rather than a failure of oversight.

At least you're not making any more guarantees

I can guarantee from my own personal experience and the personal experience of many, many, many soldiers I know from many countries including the US that we are fully accountable for every round of ammunition and every item of controlled stores.

The discharge of a weapon or use of a controlled store like a hand grenade or flashbang is either authorized or unauthorized. If unauthorized, there are consequences...often quite serious consequences. I personally know of incidents where seemingly quite minor UDs(unathorized discharges) led to very serious consequences.

Every professional western military used what are called ROE Cards(Rules of Engagement) that are agreed to by the host nation as well as the deployed military force and their respective government completed by a bunch of lawyers including those with considerable experience with the laws of armed conflict.

And again to prove I don't think the US or any other military is perfect and superhuman.....no system is perfect, but it is one that is highly, highly regulated, very comprehensive, and works reasonably well for such a complex and nebulous environment.

Really? While I know there are bullet counts and so forth in peacetime, are you seriously trying to tell me that the troops on the ground have to fill out forms for each bullet shot in combat?

I do not believe it.

As for ROE - you should know as well as I do that ROE goes right out the window when other people are shooting at you or if you're angry and want revenge.

ROE is purely a guideline. Show me a public example of the worst consequence from military oversight of a soldier who exceeds ROE, and then you would have a stronger case.

Really? So you are a subject matter expert on psychological support services for front line police/fire/medical as well?

I have a friend who works as a military Psychologist. I've always tried to use the rare downtime I spend with her to pick her brain on such topics. My 2nd hand understanding in my discussions with someone who goes downrange every time there's an incident, runs pre deployment psych briefs and evaluations, runs post deployment decompression briefs and evaluations, and long-term followup would differ from your perception. I think I'll take her word for it over yours. I also got to see first hand a number of post catastrophe efforts at psychological support as well as organic psychological support services for Police and Fire personnel down here(not the US). Everything I've seen and experienced first hand as well as 2nd hand reports differs from your quite definitive statement.

But what do I know.

Given that I made no comments whatsoever concerning whether soldiers or policeman/fireman/paramedics have psychological support, this is completely irrelevant.

Oversight is not just a shrink talking to a policeman after shooting someone. It is also the bureaucratic review procedures to examine whether a shooting was justifiable. And equally whether soldier or civilian, the smarter ones know full well how to get the most out of the system.

Equally if you assert the control processes between a soldier shooting someone in Iraq/Afghanistan is the same as a policeman who lets off a single round - show some examples.

As for efficacy of military psychological support and oversight:

Show me a policeman, fireman, or paramedic who went out and shot more than a dozen women and children, then tried to set them on fire.

Show me a policeman, fireman, or paramedic who regularly shoots 1000 pound warhead missiles into weddings.

Maybe then your comment would have more credibility.

"YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY that no brutality or excessive force is/was being used in Iraq/Afghanistan."

Specifically how am I "trying to say"?

You have an absolutely horrid habit of trying to place words directly in my mouth that is simply unacceptable.

You have a horrid habit of avoiding difficult questions.

My view is that in a war like Afghanistan or Iraq, terrible things will happen. Civilians will be shot because a soldier thought he was threatened. Civilians will be shot because the soldier was angry that his buddy just got his foot blown off by an IED.

This is human nature.

The issue, as I've said repeatedly, is whether putting American troops into these situations is necessary.

You apparently keep arguing that an American soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq is no different than a policeman in Oakland or Detroit.

I disagree.

How exactly have I done this?

What specifically have I posted where I claim "all serving troops are lily-white, completely professional, and superhuman"

If I haven't, then I strongly caution you on continuing with your pattern of behavior in this regard and another retraction for your unending and aggressive efforts to ram your words in my mouth would be appropriate.

If you believe otherwise, then perhaps you could show it by doing something other than trying to justify all military behavior and actions.

For example: I actually don't think what Staff Sergeant Bales did was unexpected. The act was horrific, but this kind of thing happens when you put 100,000+ American troops into a guerrilla war. But this doesn't change the fact that the what happened is horrific and would never have happened if those troops were not there.

Do you agree with the above statement?

I would be very interested to learn about your relationships with past and present serving military personnel.

Especially in light of the fact, in my perception, that you take such an incredibly dim, dark, and negative view on all things regarding the US military based on your post history. Maybe you should expand your network a bit for a broader anecdotal set.

The difference between you and I is that you continually try to focus on the 'positive' military slant.

My view is far more pragmatic. I respect those who serve, I appreciate the service the armed forces offer in defense of the United States, but at the same time I fully acknowledge the darker side of the military and military conflict.

Shooting people in a war isn't romantic for me, it isn't automatically a patriotic duty, it isn't even always justifiable. And while any soldier is sworn to carry out his duty, at the same time it doesn't mean a blind acceptance of what is laid down from above.

So while you keep trying to paint me as some attacker of the military, your actions only serve to underscore your own prejudice.

I have never yet attacked the military as being unnecessary, evil, or whatever.

I have noted that the military is one point of view among many.

I have noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not clearly necessary, certainly not at this point.

I have noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not improved the situation for the US either in the short or long term.

I have noted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing a huge amount of money and impacting a huge number of Americans both those serving and those at home negatively.

So that's 1 out of 5 or 6? Is this your opinion as a self taught subject matter expert? Or based on what and why exactly?

I would completely agree that not everyone who leaves the military is able to integrate successfully back into society. I wouldn't want you to attempt to portray me as having said that everyone who exits the military is super awesome and perfect.

But even with considerable experience both in and out of the military, and having a large peer group network of current and prior service personnel I'm not arrogant enough to pass personal judgement on the % of successful versus unsuccessful service personnel reintegrating into the greater civilian society because so many factors such as overall employment/unemployment, geographic location, military transferrable skillsets, economic climate, etc all play factors in it.

Yep..some people do not reintegrate into society after military service....in both wartime and peacetime

...

I fully recognize how the process of transforming from military to civilian works.....I have seen it, I do see it, and will continue to see it with my large and very active peer group. I can personally count over 30 people I know well having done so in the last 12 months and the number climbs far higher when accounting for acquaintances.

I haven't "refuse(d) to recognize this" and your accusation I have is again a terrible example of your incredibly poor interpersonal skills on this forum which you fail to adequately justify.

Given that I've never said that all soldiers are monsters, your above comment is completely irrelevant.

I say yet again: war does bad things to people both physically and psychologically. Iraq and Afghanistan are wars. These wars are not clearly necessary. Therefore any of the unavoidable physical and psychological damage being endured are not clearly necessary.

The fact that some, probably most, come back fine doesn't change in any way that others don't.

I believe you lack a fair and reasonable understanding and perspective of the US military.

I believe you lack a fair and reasonable understand and perspective of the US military as well. That soldiers at the end of the day are a commodity to be used by military command as they see fit much like bullets and beans.

I believe you either refuse to believe or are blind to the realities of conflict - that it damages people, some irreparably.

I believe that you blindly accept that the US should be in Iraq and Afghanistan.