Afghanistan: honouring the dead by staying the course

Steely Dan says:

10:21am | 13/09/10

@ Rosie

“If fighting in Afghanistan gave this brave loved soldier immense satisfaction and is accepted by his loved ones left behind as being part of the solution to the country’s problems who are we to question our troops being there???”
Who are we to question it?  We’re Australians, voters, taxpayers and citizens of the world, Rosie.  And we don’t send people to war because of soldier satisfaction.

TrueOz says:

07:26pm | 13/09/10

@ Steely Dan

Couldn’t have said it better!

A young woman is grieving, two children are fatherless, and a young life has been needlessly taken because of – what? Australian troops never should have been in this place. It’s time to take them out.

Rosie says:

09:34am | 13/09/10

I don’t think the author’s narrative was meant as any kind of justification to our troop’s involvement in Afganistan.

No doubt it is certainly a sorrowful heart-breaking piece so what the brave soldier had to say about leaving his beautiful family as essential, important, right and giving him immense satisfaction should be taken into account and for goodness sake respected. It should be enough for all of us that it was accepted by the loved ones he has left behind.

Sorry T. Chong the timing of this factual statement of yours is way out; “it could equally be told about the many afghan lives that also have been lost.”

Have a heart it is not the place and time for such comments!

Sarah says:

09:59am | 13/09/10

Mr/s Chong, in fact the majority of Afghans DO want Australia and other foreign forces there, because we are all that stands between them and the evil despotic Taliban.
You ARE aware of how the Taliban used to run Afghanistan, aren’t you? Severe oppression of everyone, no human rights, summary executions of dissidents, no education for females, destruction of world heritage areas…
THAT is what we are there to prevent.

T.Chong says:

10:22am | 13/09/10

So Rosie I should ” have a heart. ” I do Rosie , and it is for everyone , not just one side of the conflict.
Sorry if it upsets you, or anyone else, but the reality is the Coalition , (includung Australian forces) have killed far more Afghans , than Coalition losses.
Some hve been completely innocent people , trying to survive the occupation.
Others have been armed fighters against our occupation , and many of them would have also strongly believed in their cause, and also left family behind.
Its the (no doubt) unintentional racism tha sees only “our side"as being committed, noble, or having loving families that allows this craziness to continue.
Might does not equal right, neither is believing that Afghan losses are any less tragic then ours.
Sarah- the Coalition is supporting the criminal, war lord Karzi faction, not the people of Afghanistan.

Gregg says:

10:33am | 13/09/10

You cannot but feel for Beckie and the many other wives, partners, families of all that get killed in conflict and this article may not be about justifying the involvement in Afghanistan.
We have a government and both major parties that ordain our involvement even though there are many people voting for thewm that do not and how statements like ” in fact the majority of Afghans DO want Australia and other foreign forces there,” can be supported is anyone’s guess.
It was also thought to be so with Iraqis but many of them have changed their tune.
And where does the concept of us doing what we have to for the good of all stop?
How many countries are there about the planet where people do not have freedom and sure, whilst we would like to see them all with freedom, are we going to go invading so many different countries to attempt getting it.
If we are acceptive of sending military people to places where death can be on the agenda and grieve so for them, what about all people that die and should we grieve to the same extent.

The staying there until task is complete is just a furphy for the task is hardly ever going to be complete, there or anywhere and as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the US will be looking to have withdrawal underway during the next two years and likely well before the next US presidential election.
Meanwhile, we had better get used to more deaths in what was essentially a civil war zone and is now nothing more than attempting to istall a government.

Z says:

10:38am | 13/09/10

Chong Get your head out of the sand will you. Do you remember Bali?  That’s the island where 88 young innocent Australians met their maker for no other reason than being westerners enjoying life. Do you also remember bombings in UK claiming innocent Australians, a 2nd bombing in Bali etc?  To say we are only there to appease the Americans is an insult. How about we have this parliamentary debate thats been called for by Bob Brown, then get on with the job.  That might also mean supporting our troops who are in Afghanistan fighting evil.  Both sides of parliament and the troops (who are there and see it first hand) are united and committed to the cause. If you listen to Bob Brown, he’d send our troops home and then allow terrorism camps to continue unchallenged.  He’d also open up our borders and allow anyone to come here to seek ‘Asylum’.

Leto says:

10:40am | 13/09/10

ARE you aware Sarah, that the Taliban are also Afghani? How can you seperate them when they are one in the same. It’s like someone invading Australia, but only trying to kill Greens supporters.

I don’t believe in martyrs and I don’t intend to hold Jared up as one. Nor will I praise my government for exporting terrorism to Afghanistan, regardless of the gas and oil it gets us.

Afghanistan was just a colour on a map before some American yokel president pointed his stupid finger at it and said “they did it”.

Scarneck says:

10:48am | 13/09/10

Well said T.Chong.  The reality is that both sides are killing innocent people, both sides can relate to these type of stories, why? Who are we actually fighting? we don’t even know who the enemy is. We should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, if John Howard had learnt anything from history he would not have allowed our young men to be used as cannon fodder in another countries (USA) war.

Z says:

11:18am | 13/09/10

@Scarneck, you say,

“We should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place, if John Howard had learnt anything from history he would not have allowed our young men to be used as cannon fodder in another countries (USA) war. “

1. If it’s all Howard’s fault, why havent the troops been brought home in the last 3 years under a Labor government?
2. If we were ever invaded, do we have the capabilities to defend our country?  If not, who would we turn to?  Tell me.

T.Chong says:

08:51am | 13/09/10

Old Clive,  can you just quickly outline the connection between multi culturalism, terrorists and suicide bombings?
Who is being “given an inch”,and taking a mile.?
Do you mean the Afghans who dont want Australia, or any other country invadung, and occupying their land?
Do tell Old Clive, if Australian was invaded, by people who know whats best for us (just like we tell the Afghans), would you Clive, side with the invaders and be a Quisling, or would a True Blue , Loyal patriot ,like yourself, do everything to resist the invaders ?
Why expect the Afghans to be different?

Scarneck says:

11:01am | 13/09/10

Old Clive@07:42 says “Cut out this nonsense of multiculturism” You could do worse than read some Australian History books Clive, this country was built on immigration from every corner of the world. The USA are solely responsible for the rise in terrorism and now they drag other countries like Australia into their distorted view of the world. The world would be a far safer place without the USA.

Old Clive says:

11:36am | 13/09/10

If you ignore history tou are doomed to repeat it, if Australia was invaded from without you can believe me that I am prepared to die to protect my country. The big problem is that we are being invaded by a fifth column of potential sleepers who would prefer to die for their belief in a religion than to die to protect this country. Ewes blokes would be better orf if you removed yore blinkers and had a hard look at reality instead of yore philoshophical dream sheets. There is no Santa Claus.
It is hard for me to realise that a lot of people have died for the privileges that ewes are now abusing.

Gregg says:

02:54pm | 13/09/10

@Clive
” It is hard for me to realise that a lot of people have died for the privileges that ewes are now abusing. “
And what are the priveleges that ewes are now abusing Clive?

And just remember also Clive, there is a huge difference between respecting/supporting service people doing the bidding of politicians than respect of politicians and their choices.

mary wooderson says:

10:51am | 14/09/10

This country was multicultural from the time Britain arrived and a state of terra nullis was declared.Oops sorry,you were saying multiculturism is not a good thing and I suppose there are a lot of first people of this country who would agree wholeheartedly with you.I am not being disrespectful of your beliefs but I do ask you to recognise that there are very few countries where the indigenous peoples have not been dispossessed by foreign peoples.How come it was ok then but so invidious now?We cannot change the past but we must learn from it.

Adam Diver says:

08:28am | 13/09/10

I agree, personalising these decisions just adds emotion to important decisions.

However I don’t agree that we should pull out and I definately think more civilians would be killed without our presence there. But the debate definately does not need the personal heartbreak added to it.

Just a question for those who think we should pull out. We the Afghans be better off without our presence or do you simply think we will be better off not being there?

Steely Dan says:

11:07am | 13/09/10

@ Adam Diver

From what I’ve heard (and I’ll freely admit I’m no expert), I think the best solution may be to get out of Afghanistan.  I know it’s counter-intuitive to think of removing our soldiers as being helpful for the innocent Afghans who have suffered under the Taliban regime, but I think we may have done all we can do militarily.  The presence of foreign military creates its own issues, and may be inadvertently aiding Taliban recruitment.
But if somebody could show me that withdrawl would guarantee a Taliban takeover then I’d change my mind for sure.

Either way, I’m glad to see you’re basing your position on the war on the facts, not sentimentality.

Adam Diver says:

03:01pm | 13/09/10

@ Steely Dan, I can’t see how creating a power vacuum would not create anarchy in that country. As far as I can see there are 3 reasons to pull out

1. Our soldiers lives are being lost
2. We are spending a fortune
3. We are having no effect or detrimental to the country

1 and 2 are completely selfish and completly against the left doctrine of helping other people, I find it amusing to see the left use that as reasons to get out.

Number 3 is probably way out of leagues to discuss, (probably why we need real debate on the issues) but comon sense tells me that the soldiers would be doing a good job in at least providing security and that not having them there would be catastrophic for the innocent afghans.

Gregg says:

03:09pm | 13/09/10

@ Steely Dan
” But if somebody could show me that withdrawl would guarantee a Taliban takeover then I’d change my mind for sure. “
If there’s any Guarantees, it’ll be that you’ll have the Batthists or whatever Saddam’s mob were called taking over in Iraq [ read up history on formation of Iraq in the first place ] and that yes, either the Taliban will rule again in Afghanistan either solely or in partnership if a deal is brokered but I’d reckon the former for background noise about consultation and telegraphing the withdrawal punches by the US is just displaying an inherrent weakness.
Aside from that, two bigger reasons:
1. Obama was elected partially because many in the us were sickened by Iraq casualties and will be getting likewise by Afghanistan and Obama has an election in another couple of years, hence his draw down timetable regardless of the Generals.
2. The Taliban have their support in the Pashtun people, about 60%+ of Afghanistan and also many in the Pakistan NW frontier wild west badlands, one of the reasons why the Taliban have had influence there and the region is somewhat known as Pakistaniban.
It was a civil war zone and about the best way for the chance of continued domination and bringing terrorism to heel is to say ” hello communist comrades - plenty of opium here for your delightful dens and it’s all yours ”

Steely Dan says:

03:52pm | 13/09/10

@ Adam Diver

“@ Steely Dan, I can’t see how creating a power vacuum would not create anarchy in that country.”
I’m not convinced it would leave a power vacuum.  Obviously in some areas we can’t just spontaneously evacuate and will need local forces to come in, but not all regions require a military presence to survive.

“1 and 2 are completely selfish and completly against the left doctrine of helping other people”
Not going to dignify that with a response.

“comon sense tells me that the soldiers would be doing a good job in at least providing security and that not having them there would be catastrophic for the innocent afghans”
...Or it’s just prolonging aggravation and helping the Taliban foster an Us vs Them mentality.

DJ says:

09:14am | 13/09/10

How short our memories are. In 1968 my brother and I were sent to South Vietnam believing the lie the government of the day had told us and the Australian public. Over 500 young men never saw their loved ones again and thousands were mentally and physically scared. These men were no different than those who are now serving in another US misadventure other than during the Vietnam misadventure many were conscripts. I feel for every young wife and mother who loses their loved ones however history is once again repeating itself and these young people have died in vain in a war based on lies.

ABC says:

10:06am | 14/09/10

Died in vain?  Really?  I know that it is a cliche.  but you cannot compare Vietnam to the current conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq.  Unlike Vietnam the decision to send our troops to a conflict zone was subject to so much vigourous scrurtiny and debate the two do not compare.  To suggest that the decision to engage in Vietnam is the same as the current conflict is ridiculous.  The numbers of dead have not been supressed.  We are watching this war as it happens. The decision to engage is separated by about 30 years and a whole different mindset to conflict.  My father fought in Vietnam so I am not looking at this through any tinted lens.  You have issues with with governments sending troops to war?  Raise it in that context.  Afghanistan/Iraq are to vastly different beasts, don’t compare the two.

Kordez says:

10:20am | 13/09/10

The Punch needs a “like” button

PaulB says:

07:26pm | 13/09/10

Yes of course, we must honour the death of our young men by offering up more young men to be killed in the name of this fraudulent war because if we don’t their memory won’t be honoured.  Makes sense.  as for defending our freedom??  You don’t seriously believe that do you?  You do know the Americans began threatening the ruling Taliban Government with invasion in early 2001, well before 911 don’t you?  Defending our freedom for heaven’s sake!!  Get your nose out of the Murdoch Press and do a bit of research!

Ellis says:

01:12pm | 13/09/10

Close to very well said Dave…..

N says:

01:31pm | 13/09/10

Well said Dave, great synopsis. Legacy is a great cause; however there is no need to exaggerate to the tune of “a whole new generation to look after”. According to Aust War Memorial we have 2 KIA in Iraq and 11 KIA in Afghanistan, hardly a generation.

Z says:

01:45pm | 13/09/10

here, here TheRealDave regarding Legacy.  Have been donating weekly for 20 years now and will increase my donations to support the widows and children of our brave soldiers in this time of need.

Rosie says:

02:57pm | 13/09/10

“Jane, your friend’s unfortunate story is that she’s trying to avoid the fact she and her husband made a terrible mistake by having a family while he was on active duty.”

Ridiculous to assume that this loving couple made a terrible mistake by having a family while he was on active duty.

As a mother of two children, I would have considered myself blessed to have children with the love of my life, my soulmate before he was taken suddenly away from me. It makes my love for someone complete and more so now because in the children I will always see their father.

I am certain the children will give Beckie great comfort in her days of grief.

Michael says:

03:17pm | 13/09/10

Rosie, it’s as simple as this: if given the choice, would you rather have your husband alive and playing with his kids, or have his kids looking at photos of a man they only got to know for a couple of years?

If it’s the former—and I can’t see any reason why you’d choose the second given the choice—why then would you rationally choose to put up with a husband who is in the all-volunteer army and who, by his actions, chooses to spend long periods of time away from his family at the very least, if not the entirety of their lives if things go badly?

I’d rather my father here, personally.  I prefer his presence to his memory.

Rosie says:

06:34pm | 13/09/10

Unbelievable for one to put off having children because of ones chosen career involving long periods of time away from his family at the very least, if not the entirety of their lives if things go badly.

I would first consider our happiness which involves give and take in any marriage. My husband’s happiness in his chosen career as a soldier would be dealt with in whatever way I find best and if it means me having to bring up the children alone I would do it without any hesitation whatsoever.

Beckie and others would have known what they were allowing themselves into and the possibility of being widowed bringing up the children alone. I am certain they wouldn’t have it any other way.

I know what I would’ve done to keep the love of my life, my soulmate, the soldier father of my children and that is to allow him his chosen career with the knowledge and satisfaction that I was capable of taking care of our children while he was away doing a job he loved, even if it meant he could be killed.

Michael your line of thought do not do the wives of these brave soldiers any justice.

Michael says:

12:33am | 14/09/10

The fact you refused to reply with a straight answer to the question I put to you is in itself a telling answer.

Fact is, given a choice between men who can come home around 5-6 p.m. of a day and men who can only come home once every several months or so when they’re flown home (alive or dead) from another country you’d have to have be young, reckless, or ignorant (if not all three) to choose the latter.

“Unbelievable for one to put off having children because of ones chosen career involving long periods of time away from his family at the very least, if not the entirety of their lives if things go badly.”

I’m just going to sit here gawping in stunned silence at that statement for a moment.

Now that’s done, you’re seriously saying you’d rather be a widow with (in effect) fatherless children than wait a couple of years until hubby gets over his obsession with playing Russian Roulette at what amounts to a Boy Scouts camp for grown men?

“I would first consider our happiness which involves give and take in any marriage. My husband’s happiness in his chosen career as a soldier would be dealt with in whatever way I find best and if it means me having to bring up the children alone I would do it without any hesitation whatsoever.”

I didn’t realise Mad Men was on.  What time is it again?
The problem with your thesis is that a soldier already has a wife, even if he’s married.  The wife’s name is “the Army”.  That wife determines where the soldier goes, not you.  Look up a book by Lily Burana called “I Love A Man In Uniform” for more details about that.  Marriage certainly is give and take.  Problem is that a military marriage is all give by the wife and all take by the husband.  He leaves you with the kids for 99% of their lives while he goes off to shoot people in a foreign country - a job he apparently enjoys so much there is nothing else in his life that he can do which will fulfil him as a Man.

He leaves you to deal with all the financial issues and the repairs and everything else while, his only contribution in terms of actual presence is via phone, videocall, and the occasional deposit into his bank account.

I don’t call that ‘give and take’.

“Beckie and others would have known what they were allowing themselves into and the possibility of being widowed bringing up the children alone. I am certain they wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Do you have a survey to back that up, or extensive debriefs with other war widows to go on? I doubt it.  Truth is, unless the soldier and/or his wife go to a rehab hospital, or talk to Vietnam veterans, or watch the bodybags come back, or go to a military funeral, they have very little idea what they are signing up for.  And I’ll bet most haven’t been to any of these.  And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts the wives damn well would have it another way in the small hours of the night when there should be someone beside them, or when the kids first ask when Daddy’s coming home.

“I know what I would’ve done to keep the love of my life, my soulmate, the soldier father of my children and that is to allow him his chosen career with the knowledge and satisfaction that I was capable of taking care of our children while he was away doing a job he loved, even if it meant he could be killed.”

This probably appalls me even more than what you’ve said thus far.  You are seriously suggesting here that a wife should just put up and shut up and ask for nothing for herself or her children just to let Daddy go playing soldiers somewhere overseas? News flash: lots of husbands do jobs they don’t love, and they still somehow manage to be good fathers and fulfilled men at the same time.

If I were a wife, and my husband (a) wanted to start a family with me; and (b) wanted to go back for another tour of duty overseas ... my reply would be “Sweetheart, you are the love of my life.  I adore you and don’t want to lose you.  It will break my heart if I do lose you.  But I can tell you now, if you choose to put the Army or Australia ahead of your wife and your children unborn, I will go and find another man who is willing to shape up to his responsibilities at home.  Like I said, it will break my heart to lose you, but you are knowingly putting yourself in a position where I could lose you anyway, so I am simply getting the pain out of the way now while I am still young and able to get over it.  You are free to sacrifice your life for your country if you wish.  But while you are married to me, and if we should have children, it is not only your life anymore.  It is ours as well.  I will not put my children or myself through that pain of waiting or the potential pain of waiting for the rest of my life to see you once more, and I am going to find another man who understands a family man belongs to his family first, and to his job second.”

Feel free at this point to huffily point out that I am not a woman, and that I would not understand such things.

Michael says:

02:31pm | 13/09/10

Well, Z, let’s answer some of your questions:

“Can you show me one column, article, anything where families - whether they be wives, girlfriends, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers - have criticised our involvement in Afghanistan and the death of their loved ones?”

Sure.  If you consider US criticism of US involvement in Afghanistan as criticising “our” involvement (not too great a leap I would have thought) I suggest you go search up or watch “The Tillman Story”, which heavily involved Tillman’s family and goes into telling lies about military operations and wrongly lionising military volunteers in order to cover up military screw-ups and crimes like fragging one’s comrades.  And they’re not the only ones.  For me, though, I think your question is misplaced, yet proves my point: I’m not saying families have criticised our involvement in Afghanistan.  Quite the opposite.  They’re too close to it to do so.  Hence the lack of criticism.

“Of course they understand the dangers involved to their loved ones but does that mean they stop living until they return in 2 years time etc?”

Nice attempt at straw-manning my question.  As it is, I didn’t say families of servicemen should stop living while those servicemen are on deployment.  I said it was youthful foolishness to marry someone who’s going into or is on active service because of the risk of death or (worse) total incapacitation.  Accepting there is a risk of death when someone goes to work every day is one thing.  But I also think if they *really* understood the dangers to their loved ones there’d be a lot less military marriages across the board.  It’s one thing to be told “your husband is at risk of dying if he enlists”.  It’s another to actually be confronted with the reality of that situation, as Jane’s friend is unfortunately finding out.

“Are you also telling me that the terrorists will stay put in Afghanistan after they train, plot and plan?”

I think it’s demonstrable they haven’t.  If anything they’re operating mostly from Pakistan now.  And you miss my point: you don’t discoruage the establishment of terrorist bases by going into a country and trying to change its fundamental culture.  If anything that creates more recruits.  You discourage terrorism by going in, wiping out the bases that exist in that country, and then leaving.  If the bases come back, you do it again.  And again.  And again.  Eventually either the terrorists or the country sheltering them get the point and leave.

“Who was responsible for 9/11, Spain, UK, Bali x 2 bombings and other acts of violence then??”

Very glad you asked that question.  Each of the terrorist acts you’ve mentioned has been linked to Al-Qaeda, a pan-national terrorist movement which has had training bases in Afghanistan amongst other places.  Notably, some bases in Pakistan, where the US and Australia currently are not.  Its head, Osama bin Laden, is a Saudi Arabian national, again being a place where the US and Australia are not currently shooting people.

In the case of 9/11, not one Afghan was a hijacker or a planner.  14 were from Saudi Arabia, and the rest from Egypt, Lebanon, and the UAE.  In the case of Spain, they suspect Algeria, Morocco, and Syrian terrorists.  No Afghans there.  In the case of the UK bombings, all four were British nationals with no prior criminal records.  No Afghans.  In the case of the Bali bombings, it was JI, not Al-Qaeda directly, and no Afghans involved in either of those attacks.  As for “other acts of violence”, well, you’ve clearly run out of examples, so I won’t answer you there.

Get the point?

If not, it’s this: terrorism by definition moves around.  Even if you “convert” Afghanistan into a “Western” nation, it will find another home.  Or Afghanistan will simply slide back into what it has always been: a backwater on the outer edge of civilisation whose only interest in the West is how much opium it can sell to it.

And lastly: you confuse support for the military with support for its objectives, as many people do, which is indirectly responsibile for more military deaths—just as with Vietnam.

Michael says:

02:56pm | 13/09/10

Nelia, let’s be clear I’m no treehugger.  I believe in a strong military, and I believe that when there’s a threat to national security you respond to it with appropriate and necessary force.  But I also believe that—particularly in the case of the US, and to some extent Australia by extension—governments profoundly screw up how to respond to threats to national security, especially these days when the media and/or the public do not have the stomach for bodybags or “civilian” casualties, despite the fact these things necessarily happen in war.

I also believe we trivialise the choice to go to war with another country.  Sometimes it is necessary and required, but it should never be taken lightly as a choice.  It is an explicit instruction to thousands of young men and women to go out and commit mass murder.  If we’re going to do it, we should take it damn seriously, and we should do what has to be done to win it, and win it decisively.

In this context, “Support The Troops Right Or Wrong” gets more soldiers killed than necessary because it suppresses criticism of the military and its methods.  And criticism of the military should never be suppressed. At the end of the day is another government department (Defence).  Government departments routinely stuff things up.  They are deservedly criticised for it ... unless you’re in the Department of Defence, in which case “Support The Troops” is a potent cover against justified criticism.  You can back the troops in the field.  It doesn’t stop you asking why they’re there at all.  That’s the mistake the “AIF All The Way!” crowd make.

neil says:

03:21pm | 13/09/10

nelia, True this war has bee fought for 50 years and has not yet been won and it is the lack of resolve in successive western countries that has failed. The west must increase it’s efforts in the middle east and complete the assimilation process begun 2000 years ago. The Greeks then the Romans completely assimilated the ME and North Africa only for Medievil Europe to lose it. Then the imperial French and Brithish re-assimilated it only for the post WW2 west to drop the ball again. It can’t be that hard we have assimilated most of the other non-compatable cultures on the planet one big push should do it then we can turn our attention to completing the assimilation of Africa.

Gregg says:

03:26pm | 13/09/10

It’s not even so much the DOD but our politicians who are making decisions to stay the course whatever that is!
On one point our Chief Tree Hugger and would be Government CEO is correct and that’s a meaningful debate on Afghanisatan involvement is needed or perhaps we just have some Vietnam style street marches which might be more his cuppa.
That might be better seeing as it’s a bit hard for independents to really do not like to come out with the truth about why they have done something and can take anywhere from 10 to 17 minutes to tell us all about it.

Gregg says:

05:30pm | 13/09/10

@neil,
I really have to laugh!!
Like all that history, all the crusades and wars and relapses in between!
And…............
we have assimilated most of the other non-compatable cultures on the planet one big push should do it then we can turn our attention to completing the assimilation of Africa.
Have you not learnt from that which history has so recycled for you?
This one big push!, and just form do you suppose it should take? and what should it behold?
More Shock and Awe and then send in the stormtroopers for Gigagenocide , perhaps a few strategic nuclear strikes!
Forget names like Desert Storm for we should just call it Armageddon shall we?

neil says:

06:17pm | 13/09/10

Gregg your ignorance is astonishing. It’s a simple formula total military conquest, destroy infrastructure, eliminate local governance, make the population totally dependant on occupying forces. Install a puppet regime 50 to 100 years of oppression, job done.

Japan rolled over in 30 years, Israel will have Palestine sorted in another 30 to 40 years as will China with Tibet. India took Britain 100 years but American Indians took less than two generations, it is a proven and effective formula, gotta love those Romans. The west has lost the stomach for it but we had better get it back.

Gregg says:

11:40pm | 13/09/10

I’m laughing even more neil at your grasp of history too and hey lets not be too concerned over it being selective for Vietnam was probably about the best parallel and India!
A touch of Queen Vic there but a lot more of Indian culture I suspect.
But you do also touch on one country and yes, I’ve mentioned in other posts that letting the Chinese have open slather for Afghanistan may well be the way to go, plenty of supplies for their opium dens and hey, just let them keep going and have Iran and Iraq toe the bamboo line too or toe the line out of sight behind the bamboo curtain.
They might even sort out Myanmar too, build a few dams in Pakistan to try and control the flooding as well.