US bombs Pakistan

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We should elect you to Parliament, and not the pussies we have been.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

I understand the crushing paralysis that comes when hard decisions come down. I understand the natural urge to flee from two repugnant options (do nothing or risk losing our soldiers). But the exit isn't always an exit. Sometimes it just leads you further in.

[notyoueither]

One night of Canadian soldiers dragged by villagers in Pakistan, and half of NATO would be out of Afghanistan the next day.

Don't be naive.

[KrazyHorse]

If true. If. That needs to change.

If losing a dozen of our men badly could tear the heart out of something so obviously important to us (this is a long way removed from Somalia, which nobody's heart was in to begin with) then we need to learn some lessons.

Now.

[KrazyHorse]

But as far as I see it, we already lost 4 soldiers in the worst way possible. And we're still there.

[notyoueither]

To build up a resistance to losses, we would have to present a case to the people of Western Europe and North America that we have to invade Pakistan for some really good reason.

Please state the reason that we are going to send our boys and girls there, and then sell it to the people of Western Europe. I suspect you will have a harder time with them than with myself.

[KrazyHorse]

"We had to send in a company of special forces to take out the number 2 man in Al Qaeda"

I really don't know how much argument you're expecting on that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
But as far as I see it, we already lost 4 soldiers in the worst way possible. And we're still there.

We're still in Afghanistan, not invading the 'next' country.

[KrazyHorse]

People accept losses when there is a clear goal in mind. People don't when the goal is too nebulous.

Politicians have, for too long, failed to make that distinction, and assumed that people don't accept losses, period.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"We had to send in a company of special forces to take out the number 2 man in Al Qaeda"

I really don't know how much argument you're expecting on that.

The kind of argument that happens when something goes pear shaped and we watch US/Canadian/British soldiers being dragged through villages on CNN.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We're still in Afghanistan, not invading the 'next' country.

Your lack of faith in the ability of your countrymen to accept losses when the situation warrants is just as troubling as many politicians'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
People accept losses when there is a clear goal in mind. People don't when the goal is too nebulous.

Politicians have, for too long, failed to make that distinction, and assumed that people don't accept losses, period.

Sending tropops into a country we aren't at war with tends to have a negative effect on popular opinion.

The US airforce has a long-standing exemption to this rule.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The kind of argument that happens when something goes pear shaped and we watch US/Canadian/British soldiers being dragged through villages on CNN.

And when you can say "we did it because we had information that bad guy X (who's largely responsible for murdering 3000 of our/our friend's citizens) was going to be there, you win the argument. Case closed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Your lack of faith in the ability of your countrymen to accept losses when the situation warrants is just as troubling as many politicians'.

Or realistic.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Sending tropops into a country we aren't at war with tends to have a negative effect on popular opinion.

The US airforce has a long-standing exemption to this rule.

Only because it's made itself one. Because politicians' balls don't shrink quite so much when the risk of loss of men on our side is low.

Large parts of Pakistan are lawless. Explain just how lawless to people, and they will accept, by and large, the need to take a quick walkabout over the line once in a while. On specific occasions. When certain people get dinner invitations.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Or realistic.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leaders temporise, and the citizenry begins to wonder what the point was if even the man who ordered it can't come out and say.