Originally posted by inimalist
cool, if you will only dismiss the only available evidence, I feel my point has been made successfully. Feel free to actually provide some evidence.EDIT: ugh, wtf is up with these links?
The only available evidence that itself has been argued to be skewed. Not a single one of those has been totally legit. Hell, the top two you chose differed by over several hundred thousand. If that's what you call victory, then by all means congrats. I get where you're coming from with the whole guerilla warfare tactic being effective for these guys. Hell, the US used it against the British early on. But these tactics would only get you so far when push comes to shove.
Originally posted by socool8520
The only available evidence that itself has been argued to be skewed. Not a single one of those has been totally legit. Hell, the top two you chose differed by over several hundred thousand. If that's what you call victory, then by all means congrats. I get where you're coming from with the whole guerilla warfare tactic being effective for these guys. Hell, the US used it against the British early on. But these tactics would only get you so far when push comes to shove.
no, you are correct, all the available evidence suggesting my point is accurate is not evidence that my point is accurate.
In general I'd put America at the top of the list in almost every category you could think of.
China is definitely the top contender for second place.
As for ini's arguments...well as my Ethics professor Dr. McNaughton would say: "He's very, very good, but he's wrong."
The Mujahadeen's achievements are nothing special when you consider that the mightiest empires in history have always had trouble in Afghanistan and with insurgencies in general.
Don't kid yourself, if the Mujahadeen were fighting for control of a temperate continental plain region the Russians would have flattened them with or without American support.
The Imperial Russian general who conquered the Uzbeks was interviewed by a British newspaper at a time when the Great Game was at its height and the British feared a Russian invasion of India. He laughed it off for the fact that to get to India (apart from requiring an ABSURD amount of camels for transport) he would need to go through Afghanistan and to go through Afghanistan he'd essentially need to conquer it first, something he dismissed not because the Afghan tribes were powerful but because they were tenacious, they had the home-field advantage, they lived in a dirt poor region where the Russians wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and to top it all off the British would just send them guns.
Originally posted by inimalist
of course there are issues. Do you have better data? no?ok, so, this is the best available data, and it supports the claim I made. You can dismiss it, cool, your choice, but you certainly don't have an opinion better supported by data.
http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/15/attachments/Crawford%20Iraq%20Civilians.pdf
Here is something else. While it's true that in the first year according to this account, US coalition forces (not just the US), did account for over 52 percent of civilian casualties, I find it odd that the 41 percent of unknown perpetrators weren't split with the anti-coalition forces. Also, it states that within 5 years of the war, the US had brought their overall civilian casualty rating to just 12 percent overall, with 74 percent to unknown perpetrators. Had we been as hell bent as you claim, wouldn't those percentages just stayed around 50 percent?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
In general I'd put America at the top of the list in almost every category you could think of.China is definitely the top contender for second place.
India, Russia and Europe would still all dominate China imho at this point, unless it was them being the aggressor (China is not invadable I don't think, and none of those nations have an easy assault on Beijing).
Give it 20 years though...
Originally posted by Omega Vision
As for ini's arguments...well as my Ethics professor Dr. McNaughton would say: "He's very, very good, but he's wrong."
maybe
I did concede, in fact in the post that was quoted when this thread was revived, that America is inarguably the most powerful military, in terms of numbers, technology, mobility, ability to deploy around the world quickly, etc, pretty much anything you want to name (though iirc Britain has better subs, and in theory, Canadians often win war games against you, using your tech of course, also, us, Russia and the other Scandinavian nations might be better in arctic climates... actually, thinking just numbers, Russia also has more nukes). Largely this is more like a thought experiment so that there is even something to debate beyond "India has a more desert specialized force than America and is therefore more powerful in that theater".
That being said, there is a lot wrong with my argument, not least of which, I've essentially branded all "Muj" groups into a single entity, talking about Ba'athist loyalists conducting attacks in Iraq as being the same as Hezbollah as being the same as the Taliban. In terms of ideological consistency, I may as well talk about the FARC or IRA as being part of the Muj. Additionally, to say the Muj are powerful is more to say that all armies have exploitable weaknesses. The Muj themselves have no broad military strategy, no win condition, and no sustainability. They are driven by rage, hatred and fanaticism. They are only powerful in the way that a deep gash has power over you. Sure, it could be fatal, but it would hardly be accurate to describe it as defeating you.
I'm more talking about asymmetric tactics in a broader sense, and the Muj are the group that I know the most about. Also, its not totally correct to say there is no cohesive Muj group, as there are individuals who have traveled through Yugoslavia, Chechnya and wound up in Palestine or Afghanistan or wherever plying their trade and training new insurgents.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Mujahadeen's achievements are nothing special
arguable
there has never been a conflict in history so asymmetric as the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, barring maybe the colonization of the New World. Though, the difference in tech now is so great that a large part of the American arsenal is actually redundant and useless because of how poorly equipped the insurgents are, which can not be said of Europe in the Americas.
Further, invasions of Afghanistan by the USSR and Iraq and Afghanistan by America played a major part (though not a causal role) in the complete dissolution of the USSR and a major reduction in power and economy in America that they will likely never fully recover from. These were two of the greatest powers the world has ever seen. This would be like the IRA forcing the end of the British Empire, or the failed invasion of ancient Scotland being the end of Rome.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
when you consider that the mightiest empires in history have always had trouble in Afghanistan and with insurgencies in general.
Power is about having the ability to influence the world to your own desires. If it is impossible to do such a thing in Afghanistan, how powerful is the person that tries?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't kid yourself, if the Mujahadeen were fighting for control of a temperate continental plain region the Russians would have flattened them with or without American support.
debatable
obviously geography plays a critical role, but I don't necessarily think as decisive as you are saying. I look at it more like Mao described it, with the fish and the sea. The fish, the insurgents, need to move freely in the sea, the people, to be powerful. Basically, so long as the people of a region support you over your opponent, you are able to have a successful insurgency.
Does geography play a role, of course, but not all successful insurgencies have been fought in such places. The American revolution and Russian revolution, afaik, weren't decided by such geographical things. The Iraqi insurgency hasn't relied on terrain to any serious degree. Mao's take over of China even.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Imperial Russian general who conquered the Uzbeks was interviewed by a British newspaper at a time when the Great Game was at its height and the British feared a Russian invasion of India. He laughed it off for the fact that to get to India (apart from requiring an ABSURD amount of camels for transport) he would need to go through Afghanistan and to go through Afghanistan he'd essentially need to conquer it first, something he dismissed not because the Afghan tribes were powerful but because they were tenacious, they had the home-field advantage, they lived in a dirt poor region where the Russians wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and to top it all off the British would just send them guns.
interesting. The pentagon said similar things about invading Iraq during the first Gulf War.
I'd argue such foolish decisions show a complete lack of power.
Originally posted by socool8520
http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/15/attachments/Crawford%20Iraq%20Civilians.pdfHere is something else. While it's true that in the first year according to this account, US coalition forces (not just the US), did account for over 52 percent of civilian casualties, I find it odd that the 41 percent of unknown perpetrators weren't split with the anti-coalition forces.
So, this paper gets its numbers from Iraq Body Count, and their method of collecting data was by tracking incidents in english language news sources (worldwide), hence why they are thought to under-count, as non-reported deaths are not included (there are also accusations of bias because of only english sources, which also probably indicates the IBC numbers are too low).
The reason unknown is not in either the coalition or insurgent category is that they are precisely that. The perpetrator is not known. You suggest they should be in the insurgent category? I should think not. The vast majority of the unknowns, as the linked paper describes, are as a result of criminal activity that occurs when all of the security institutions of a nation are removed. This criminal activity, along with the sectarian militias that caused huge portions of the violence are not insurgents. They weren't fighting against the Americans, they were fighting other Iraqis, or they were opportunist gangs. Further, in terms of sheer probability, given how many more deaths were being caused by coalition forces, it is more likely that the unknown deaths are really attributable to coalition forces, at least for this period.
Originally posted by socool8520
Also, it states that within 5 years of the war, the US had brought their overall civilian casualty rating to just 12 percent overall, with 74 percent to unknown perpetrators.
Yes, this is an interesting trend that also sort of holds for Afghanistan too. One of the main reasons is that the Iraqi insurgency didn't really start until 2005, and it took some years for the Taliban to organize into a threat in Afghanistan.
The main reason however is the use of American air power. If you look at the month by month chart of civilian deaths IBC has, you see march 03, the initial invasion of Iraq, was the most costly month in the entire war, by far, for civilian deaths. This is because bombing is indiscriminate and disproportionately powerful.
However, this actually comes back to what I was saying much earlier in this thread. This data actually proves that American soldiers do a pretty good job of not killing civilians. It still happens, and they should be criticized for it, but the vast majority of civilian deaths appear to be a result of bombings. Whats more, these spectacular bombings from the air are mentioned specifically as being a motivator for people to take action against the Americans, and bombed out homes and dead bodies prove invaluable as a propaganda tool motivating people to join the insurgency against the Americans.
As I argued with Omega Vision, power is not just a calculation of tech and numbers, it is about your ability to manipulate the world to your will. America's tactical reliance on air bombings in this regard is actually the most detrimental way they could use their power, and thus, actually makes them less powerful. Their continued insistence on this tactic, such as the drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen where scores of innocent civilians are dying, shows a poor use of power, imho, indicating the Americans are not as powerful as their technology or numbers might make them seem.
Originally posted by socool8520
Had we been as hell bent as you claim, wouldn't those percentages just stayed around 50 percent?
I didn't claim you were hell bent, you got defensive because I don't wank off with a bald eagle
My actual statement was this:
Originally posted by inimalist
And further, if you want to talk about civilian deaths, America is responsible for death and carnage done to innocent people on a scale Al Qaeda only dreams of being able to accomplish. At least 170 000 civilian deaths in Iraq and over 1 000 000 displaced, ROE or not, that isn't a military that is trying to avoid civilian casualties.
The only part of that we have been discussing is civilian death as a direct response to violence. Even just considering those numbers, it appears the Americans are responsible for more.
However, if you look at things like indirect deaths, losses of economy, infrastructure, displacement, damage to health, education and any other institutions, the Americans have caused this on a magnitude so great that it would be impossible for insurgents to match. The first month of bombing did so much damage to Iraq that it will be decades before they even catch up to where they were under Saddam. People in Iraq are going to live without water, electricity, lack of food or jobs and with a chronic instability, under the shadow of Iranian influence, that is, if they aren't one of the over 1 000 000 refugees.
The point is, there is no moral high ground here. Is targeting a civilian directly as a tactic morally more reprehensible than targeting an insurgent in the midst of civilians? maybe, though in terms of outcome, given how disproportionately military might is divided in this situation, it might be better to ask: is it morally worse to kill 10 000 civilians as a tactic or directly kill equal numbers, many times more indirectly, and cause catastrophic changes in the lives of millions as a result of tactics?
Like, I don't think there is an easy answer to that, but the certainty with which you express your support of US policy seems to indicate you don't understand the scope of the damage they have done to the civilian populations of Afghanistan or Iraq, and that they continue to do in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Originally posted by inimalist
India, Russia and Europe would still all dominate China imho at this point, unless it was them being the aggressor (China is not invadable I don't think, and none of those nations have an easy assault on Beijing).Give it 20 years though...
Europe as a combined military would defeat China and would defeat America if the war was fought in their hemisphere (America would win a Global War) but I wasn't considering Europe as a united military.
As for Russia...well hell that's incredibly tough to say. Their performance in Georgia was laughable. Sure they won, but if you look at what global analysts say they were expected to win much more decisively and in half the time. If they can't establish total air superiority over Georgia...how the Hell are they going to do it against China? And while the illusion of some that air power is all that matters in modern warfare is just that...an illusion, it is unarguably a (if not THE) deciding factor between two conventional militaries.
maybeI did concede, in fact in the post that was quoted when this thread was revived, that America is inarguably the most powerful military, in terms of numbers, technology, mobility, ability to deploy around the world quickly, etc, pretty much anything you want to name (though iirc Britain has better subs, and in theory, Canadians often win war games against you, using your tech of course, also, us, Russia and the other Scandinavian nations might be better in arctic climates... actually, thinking just numbers, Russia also has more nukes). Largely this is more like a thought experiment so that there is even something to debate beyond "India has a more desert specialized force than America and is therefore more powerful in that theater".
That being said, there is a lot wrong with my argument, not least of which, I've essentially branded all "Muj" groups into a single entity, talking about Ba'athist loyalists conducting attacks in Iraq as being the same as Hezbollah as being the same as the Taliban. In terms of ideological consistency, I may as well talk about the FARC or IRA as being part of the Muj. Additionally, to say the Muj are powerful is more to say that all armies have exploitable weaknesses. The Muj themselves have no broad military strategy, no win condition, and no sustainability. They are driven by rage, hatred and fanaticism. They are only powerful in the way that a deep gash has power over you. Sure, it could be fatal, but it would hardly be accurate to describe it as defeating you.
arguablethere has never been a conflict in history so asymmetric as the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, barring maybe the colonization of the New World. Though, the difference in tech now is so great that a large part of the American arsenal is actually redundant and useless because of how poorly equipped the insurgents are, which can not be said of Europe in the Americas.
The Mongols were arguably kings of asymmetric warfare, you don't think of them that way because they were the big bad superpower, but if you really look at their tactics as well as their battles you see that they employed tactics that while not exactly new were radically different than those of the armies they faced, armies which often times outnumbered the Mongols heavily and had the advantage of home turf. If you define asymmetric warfare as not fighting fair to overcome a serious disadvantage then the Mongols are a case study because they used their light cavalry tactics to defeat the two most powerful armies in the world at the time (the Arab Caliphate and the Song Dynasty) when just a few years before anyone would have thought those entrenched empires unassailable...by the means then deemed conventional.
Further, invasions of Afghanistan by the USSR and Iraq and Afghanistan by America played a major part (though not a causal role) in the complete dissolution of the USSR and a major reduction in power and economy in America that they will likely never fully recover from. These were two of the greatest powers the world has ever seen. This would be like the IRA forcing the end of the British Empire, or the failed invasion of ancient Scotland being the end of Rome.
Do you honestly think the Muj are even tangentially responsible for the Recession? Because that seems to be where you're going here...
Power is about having the ability to influence the world to your own desires. If it is impossible to do such a thing in Afghanistan, how powerful is the person that tries?
I laugh at the notion of there not being a military solution in Afghanistan to mean that no one could conquer it. It just means that given the rewards conquering it would bring measured against the difficulty and the resources required no country on Earth will go far enough.
The Soviets weren't in Afghanistan to conquer it, nor are the Americans now. Supporting a government favorable to you and actually subjugating a people and telling them "you're Russian now" or "you're American now" are completely different and on a totally different scale of commitment. If the USSR had actually been trying to do the latter I'm not saying they'd have succeeded but the amount of resources committed to the conflict would be much greater.
debatableobviously geography plays a critical role, but I don't necessarily think as decisive as you are saying. I look at it more like Mao described it, with the fish and the sea. The fish, the insurgents, need to move freely in the sea, the people, to be powerful. Basically, so long as the people of a region support you over your opponent, you are able to have a successful insurgency.
Does geography play a role, of course, but not all successful insurgencies have been fought in such places. The American revolution and Russian revolution, afaik, weren't decided by such geographical things. The Iraqi insurgency hasn't relied on terrain to any serious degree. Mao's take over of China even.
As for the American revolution it did matter very much. The British were unable to take control of the Appalachians due to the terrain and the resistance of the natives and they only really started having trouble when the French navy interfered with their supply lines and strangled their troops on the American continent. You may not be thinking of the oceans as geographic features but as someone who used to spend most of his free time studying every little detail of military history I do.
The situation is analogous with the one in Afghanistan today. Pakistan halts NATO supplies and for the first time in ten years NATO starts to sweat. Because Afghanistan is landlocked we're forced to go through Pakistan. Pakistan because Iran clearly won't help us and we don't want to have to ship resources through Russia and Central Asia.
interesting. The pentagon said similar things about invading Iraq during the first Gulf War.I'd argue such foolish decisions show a complete lack of power.
I'd say it shows a lack of good judgment and overconfidence. The Romans were powerful as all get out but they often embarked on campaigns that were wasteful or outright suicidal (Parthian invasion, Scotland, the Teutoburger Forest)
Those failures didn't mean the Roman Empire was weak, just that they had their limits.
Because if any power that can't win every war 100% of the time with no setbacks and no major casualties can't be called strong...then there has never been a strong military in the world's history.
And let me ask you this: how well would the Muj do if they tried to invade New York City and set up shop there?
Do you think their tactics would serve them well in unfamiliar territory with a hostile population?
I should think power is being able to make your will a reality no matter where you go.