[DanaC]

I can see that there was true justification for going into Afghanistan. But the aims of the administration at the time flounder, for me, on the fact that they chose to also to invade Iraq. Iraq hadn't declared war on America, had no connection whatsoever with the 9/11 attacks, had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat to America, had no Al Quaeda connections.

I am not a 'pacifist'. I don't believe 'everything' is warmongering. I lost all trust in the war-aims in Afghanistan when Iraq was dragged into the fray. The level of dishonesty and the rush to military action there cast huge doubt in my mind as to what the administration was hoping to achieve in Afghanistan.


I think you're absolutely right about the need for a different kind of war. The 'non-basic military concepts' you mentioned. And this is another problem I have with the situation in Afghanistan. Traditional war styles have historically failed in Afghanistan. I do not believe either the American administration, or their allies (my own government included) were clear enough in what they wanted from the action, and how to achieve that action. That's not to say that the soldiers didn;t do a good job. But I think the aims could have been more clearly defined: what was the projected end of the operation? How was that to be achieved? Part one may have been planned and executed well (I'll take your word for that, you're the expert, I am not). But what was the overall aim? Was it to end the threat of Al-Quaeda? To crush the Taleban? To bring democracy? To find and kill Bin Laden? All of the above? Each of those aims would require a different approach. Some are/were served by the approach taken. Others were not. And none of them, I believe, were served or furthered by engaging in a war on multiple fronts unnecessarily.

None of this is an attack on the military. It is a criticism of the political war-aims, not the military war-aims.