What would Patton do in this situation? Shit, what did we do when we found Werwolf guerrillas in WWII? We lined them up against a wall and shot them, that's what. Until we have the stomach to unleash our boys to go murder these lousy terrorist bastards, more good young men and women are going to die for a hellish nation that Alexander couldn't even take.
Well the story now is he has resigned so I guess POTUS gets to pick someone else.
Drudge has it unofficially that he's offered his resignation.
Last edited by djones520; 06-22-2010 at 06:19 PM.
Is it me, or does this picture pretty much sum it all up? LTG McChrystal looks apalled and Obama looks like a man without a teleprompter.
Afghanistan is one of the most backward, misbegotten hellholes in the world, and it has been that way since Alexander crossed it on his way to India. But, unfortunately, in the age of the internet, international air travel and rapid proliferation of ideologies, backward, misbegotten hellholes breed the kind of men who board airliners with box cutters and murder people by the thousands because they feel that Allah isn't getting all of the respect that he should be from Americans who were previously providing them with massive aid.
The only ones who have ever succeeded in subjugating the afghans were the Mongols and the Macedonians. Alexander did it by waging a war of savage counterinsurgency and then ended up marrying the daughter of one of the more prominent warlords, appointing him to run the place in his name, and then getting out of the country before the rest of the warlords rose up. The Mongols, in the words of Gibbon, created a desert and called it peace.
You raise a great point. What would Patton do? We can't really use the post WWII constabulary period as an example. For one thing, the Werewolf guerrillas never materialized into a major threat. With the exception of a few fanatical SS types, most Germans were perfectly happy to go back to what was left of their homes and spend the rest of their lives fabricating stories about not having been Nazis during the war. So, we can't extrapolate from Patton's last campaign during WWII.
The fact is, Patton never had to face a major insurgency, unless you count his time on the Mexican border, chasing Pancho Villa under Pershing, and they never caught Villa. So, what would he have done in Afghanistan? Certainly, Patton, the classicist, would have studied the campaigns of Alexander and Genghis Khan and drawn the appropriate lessons, which boiled down to being as ruthless as your adversary, and destroying him so that neither he nor his children can stand against you, but those lessons would have been a problem for Patton.
During the siege of Samarkand, Genghis Khan drew half the garrison outside the fortifications and destroyed them in combat. within a few days, all but about 2,000 soldiers surrendered, with the last few holed up in the citadel. Genghis took the city and then executed every soldier that had taken arms against him, despite his promise to honor their surrender. The people of the city were driven out into the adjacent plain, where they were slaughtered. It was here that the Mongols erected the pyramid of heads that terrorized the world for centuries after. Patton, who was a chivalrous commander, would have been apalled by such tactics, as would almost any American, and would never have stood for the deliberate mass slaughter of an enemy's women and children as part of a campaign of terror.
That leaves us with Alexander. After years of bitter attrition warfare, Alexander managed to strike a single blow that temporarily scattered the Afghan tribes and killed their leadership, but it was only temporary. He knew that they would eventually re-form under another general and the war would start again, so he picked the most powerful of the remaining chiefs, presented him with an offer of marriage to his daughter, Roxanna (who he had captured a few days previously) and a promise to support him as his surrogate in Afghanistan. The chieftain had no problem suppressing the other tribes, and was happy to take charge as the father-in-law of the great conqueror. Alexander left mountains of cash to sustain his ally and left for India, and the peace held until the next nation passed through.
So, there you have it. Our options are genocide or the raising of a local strongman and entrusting him to keep the peace. Neither of these options is viable. Americans won't stand for genocide unless something truly heinous provokes us, something so offensive that it even silences our liberals for the duration. If Bin Laden were to nuke Los Angeles or New York, you might see it, but that's about what it would take. And the strongman option only works until the inevitable insurgency topples him.
Do you think it is possible to defeat the enemy if we went all out militarily but did not use nukes? If the answer is no, we need to get out now.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|