Afghanistan.

[StrangeSox]

No, that's not how it works.

 

You made an argument you cannot prove right. Everything about your argument is hypothetical, and it jumps to the conclusion you want it to jump too, be it increased hate toward the US occupation, OR lessened support from the locals. It's not up to me to prove an argument that hasn't be proven right to be wrong.

 

The people helping the US military in this operation won't suddenly stop helping them because of this incident, because these people will understand this incident wasn't condoned by the US military and it was just a fringe group of idiots that did something clearly out of bounds with the rules of being a US soldier. Just as it won't create added Taliban support, except from those that already planned on supporting them anyway.

 

Please read the paper I just linked for a clear explanation of how insurgency and counter-insurgency works, how vital local support is and how wrong it is to assume that damaging the reputation of the US military and giving ready-made propaganda material to the enemy won't harm US operations.

[Y2HH]

Please read the paper I just linked for a clear explanation of how insurgency and counter-insurgency works, how vital local support is and how wrong it is to assume that damaging the reputation of the US military and giving ready-made propaganda material to the enemy won't harm US operations.

 

Again, we will NOT lose local support of this incident no matter how badly you seem to wish we will. If this was ordered by those in charge of these solders, it would damage the US military's reputation, but as it stands, this is CLEARLY soldiers breaking rules/laws.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Again, we will NOT lose local support of this incident no matter how badly you seem to wish we will.

 

But up above you've indirectly admitted that you will lose some support, just that those people don't matter because they weren't really helping the US before. This idea is conclusively wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Again, we will NOT lose local support of this incident no matter how badly you seem to wish we will.

 

I don't hope that we lose support. I am applying what I see as common, basic human emotional reaction to situations to draw the conclusion that, hey, when members of the US military do s***ty things to Afghanis, other Afghanis probably won't like the US military as much.

[Y2HH]

But up above you've indirectly admitted that you will lose some support, just that those people don't matter because they weren't really helping the US before. This idea is conclusively wrong.

 

No, I did not. Stop creating words or meanings of words without first asking the person that said them.

 

Just because I only spoke of the people that are actively helping doesn't have any bearing on those that aren't. But in this case, they wouldn't matter anyway.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Again, we will NOT lose local support of this incident no matter how badly you seem to wish we will. If this was ordered by those in charge of these solders, it would damage the US military's reputation, but as it stands, this is CLEARLY soldiers breaking rules/laws.

 

You're denying the effectiveness of propaganda.

[StrangeSox]

No, I didn't. You made it up.

 

Ok, then you're back to "what members of the US military do" having zero impact on local opinion of the US military.

[StrangeSox]

Oh so none. I'll admit my own direct experience is tangential, but there's some at least.

 

But here's a paper detailing exactly how important local support is and exactly how wrong you are.

 

Please read this paper before making any more claims about the importance or lack thereof of local support in counter-insurgency operations.

[Y2HH]

Ok, then you're back to "what members of the US military do" having zero impact on local opinion of the US military.

 

[Y2HH]

Please read this paper before making any more claims about the importance or lack thereof of local support in counter-insurgency operations.

 

So reading a single paper makes you the expert on all matters military?

 

Great paper...too bad it's just one of a million of such papers.

[StrangeSox]

us supporters will still support the us, taliban supporters will still support the taliban regardless of incident. That it will not lessen support for the US military. This is the argument you've made. .

[Y2HH]

us supporters will still support the us, taliban supporters will still support the taliban regardless of incident. That it will not lessen support for the US military. This is the argument you've made. .

 

I give up.

[StrangeSox]

So reading a single paper makes you the expert on all matters military?

 

Great paper...too bad it's just one of a million of such papers.

 

No, reading lots of things over the last decade makes me a little knowledgeable but certainly far from an expert.

 

I provided the paper because of your childish "oh Colonel SS" remarks dismissing my claims of the important of local support. So, I provided something I'd read before provided by someone in the military. I've supported my position.

 

If you have other reliable sources claiming that local support is inconsequential to counter-insurgency and intelligence gathering, please provide them. Until then, you have an unsupported assertion directly contradicted by current military doctrine.

[StrangeSox]

I give up.

 

I am wrong to conclude that your central claim is that this will have no impact on support for the US military by local Afghani civilians?

[Y2HH]

No, reading lots of things over the last decade makes me a little knowledgeable but certainly far from an expert.

 

I provided the paper because of your childish "oh Colonel SS" remarks dismissing my claims of the important of local support. So, I provided something I'd read before provided by someone in the military. I've supported my position.

 

If you have other reliable sources claiming that local support is inconsequential to counter-insurgency and intelligence gathering, please provide them. Until then, you have an unsupported assertion directly contradicted by current military doctrine.

 

That's not what I did...that's the problem.

 

I NEVER said local support isn't important. As a matter of fact, nobody did.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Here is another paper from a Major General who was in charge of intelligence operations in Afghanistan. Is he also wrong in claiming that local intelligence gathering is crucial?

 

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/public...e507_voices.pdf

 

Reading through these two papers should give you a clearer understanding of exactly why many people in the military and intelligence community regard these disgraceful situations as so damaging.

[StrangeSox]

That's not what I did...that's the problem.

 

I NEVER said local support isn't important. As a matter of fact, nobody did.

 

Let me rephrase that: the importance of local support in intelligence gathering. If you read these papers, you'll see that your rejection of how this sort of incident impacts local support and how that impacts intelligence gathering does not hold up. Afghanis are not static people whose opinions don't change.

 

The US military does not rely on one or two key people in a village but needs support of the village as a whole to suppress insurgency. That is the importance of local support.

 

If you accept that, then we're back to square one, where your claim is that this video has no impact on local support.

Edited January 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

Here is another paper from a Major General who was in charge of intelligence operations in Afghanistan. Is he also wrong in claiming that local intelligence gathering is crucial?

 

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/public...e507_voices.pdf

 

Reading through these two papers should give you a clearer understanding of exactly why many people in the military and intelligence community regard these disgraceful situations as so damaging.

 

Nobody, from the start, argued that these weren't disgraceful actions. As a matter of fact, I outright said I didn't condone such actions, and they are clearly out of bounds for any military personnel. The argument I made was this incident was NOT going to create any new terrorists. That's all.

 

As for diminished local support, could it have an effect? Possibly. Will it? Impossible to know, and further impossible to quantity. Do I personally think it will? No, because these weren't soldiers following orders, but clearly breaking rules/laws unbecoming a member of the US armed forces. They will face harsh public punishment in response, too. I conclude that this incident will NOT harm the US Military's reputation by any clear thinking individual. The only thing it could do is cause those that already hate them to...you guessed it, continue hating them. Just as my early example of bigotry showed, a guy that hates black people don't require MORE excuses to hate black people...he already hates them...and will continue hating them regardless of reason. These aren't the people that matter in either regard.

[StrangeSox]

Nobody, from the start, argued that these weren't disgraceful actions. As a matter of fact, I outright said I didn't condone such actions, and they are clearly out of bounds for any military personnel. The argument I made was this incident was NOT going to create any new terrorists. That's all.

 

This is a slight-of-hand. Balta explained his point in detail here and clearly tied it to local support. If this is the case, then you're arguing against a position that no one is really advocating, that this will create new terrorists.

 

Do I personally think it will? No, because these weren't soldiers following orders, but clearly breaking rules/laws unbecoming a member of the US armed forces. They will face harsh public punishment in response, too. I conclude that this incident will NOT harm the US Military's reputation by any clear thinking individual. .

 

This is still ignoring local perceptions of foreign armies, availability of information and the effectiveness of propaganda. Any clear thinking individual in 1930's Germany should have seen right through the anti-Semitic propaganda, but it provided an easy scapegoat for their problems.

 

More to the point, however, is that the importance of local support doesn't mean relying on a bunch of Afghan political junkies who will follow this story closely. They may only ever here of it from people sympathetic to the Taliban. Hell, look at the level of political and current-events ignorance in America, and that's in a country with huge amounts of freely available information.

[StrangeSox]

I forgot to acknowledge your statement that you haven't been defending these acts. You very clearly have not. Neither has jenks.

[StrangeSox]

I want to highlight something from that CNAS paper that highlights just how important local relations are:

 

But the battalion’s intelligence effort was equally decisive. Battalion leadership understood that driving a wedge between the people and the insurgents would advance the U.S.-Afghan mission, and it geared its intelligence toward understanding the environment, knowing this would ultimately make Marines safer than would over-concentrating on the IED threat. Crucially, the battalion commander took an active role in feeding and guiding the collection effort. His priority intelligence requirements, which he frequently updated, asked who the local powerbrokers were and what social dynamics were ripe for exploitation. A visitor to the district center of Nawa last June, before the battalion arrived, would today not recognize the bustling marketplace. Farmers who last summer would have said nothing upon spotting the Taliban burying a roadside bomb now chase them away themselves.

 

[Y2HH]

This is a slight-of-hand. Balta explained his point in detail here and clearly tied it to local support. If this is the case, then you're arguing against a position that no one is really advocating, that this will create new terrorists.

 

 

 

This is still ignoring local perceptions of foreign armies, availability of information and the effectiveness of propaganda. Any clear thinking individual in 1930's Germany should have seen right through the anti-Semitic propaganda, but it provided an easy scapegoat for their problems.

 

More to the point, however, is that the importance of local support doesn't mean relying on a bunch of Afghan political junkies who will follow this story closely. They may only ever here of it from people sympathetic to the Taliban. Hell, look at the level of political and current-events ignorance in America, and that's in a country with huge amounts of freely available information.

 

Not quite on this one.

 

My family is from that Germany, and it's not like they were given a choice to see through that propaganda...you either agreed with it, or they shot you dead. So they agreed with it. Quite a bit different than actually having a choice as a clear thinking individual.

[StrangeSox]

Not quite on this one.

 

My family is from that Germany, and it's not like they were given a choice to see through that propaganda...you either agreed with it, or they shot you dead. So they agreed with it. Quite a bit different than actually having a choice as a clear thinking individual.

 

Anti-Semitism was a tool used by the Nazis to gain support, not something invented by the Nazis. Many Germans (hell, many Europeans and probably a decent chunk of Americans) were just fine with anti-Semitic views.

[Y2HH]

Anti-Semitism was a tool used by the Nazis to gain support, not something invented by the Nazis. Many Germans (hell, many Europeans and probably a decent chunk of Americans) were just fine with anti-Semitic views.

 

It was also backed up by soldiers that would kill you if you didn't agree with it. I never said it was invented by them, but it was used by them and enforced in a way unlike most have ever seen. I believe Saddam used similar tactics to get people to buy into his propaganda.

[StrangeSox]

It was also backed up by soldiers that would kill you if you didn't agree with it. I never said it was invented by them, but it was used by them and enforced in a way unlike most have ever seen. I believe Saddam used similar tactics to get people to buy into his propaganda.

 

Hey buddy, I saw the temporary propaganda exhibit at the Holocaust museum recently, I'm an expert.

 

Seriously though, it was really fascinating (we happened to get in as part of a guided tour) and detailed how effective it really was. I'm not passing moral judgement on all German people here--hell I'm part German!--but giving an example of how an Afghani may not see the situation from the same perspective or with the same information as someone from the US.

 

edit: anti-semitism has been pretty wide-spread for centuries if not millenia and not at the end of a gun. The Nazis just stoked those prejudices to new levels.

Edited January 13, 2012 by StrangeSox