Quote:
Originally Posted by pacman
we won those in a shorter amount of time because they had armies who actually fought us and didnt plant IEDs. the haji's in afghanistan fight guerilla warfare. primarily, they rely on a small fighting force with AK's and RPG's they can buy anywhere on the planet. whereas, in WW2, we fought very large armies who relied on production in factories to take us down. we were able to cripple them buy demolishing their roads, trains, and factories. we fought them with attrition. the haji's however, hide in the mountains where they cant be seen and we cant just drop millions of pounds of ordinance on them. 21st century warfare is so much different then what happened 60-70 years ago.
also, the hajis hide amongst the civilians. in ww2, all the civilians had evacuated or were already killed. cities were annihilated. these sand niggers mindset is to just piss us off enough to where we want to stick around and kick their asses. therefore, there are more of us to kill.
the last invading force to successfully overtake afghanistan was alexander the great's army. whats happeneing to us is exactly what happened back in the 80's to Russia when they invaded. They were there for 10 years until they realized their efforts were hopeless.
|
I appreciate this response. I was thinking the same exact thing, including the example of Russia's occupation of Afghan.
Quote:
|
i agree with most of that but if we had went in with 500,000 or a million troops and set up a bunker on every street corner and never gave those haji bastards a chance to get organized it would be a different story. thats just my opinion though im no military strategist.
|
Yeah, but you can probably imagine the problems you would encounter with an undertaking like that. I believe that the problem with our strategy is that our military is trying to do the job that is better suited for a police force (or John Rambo).