General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Satter, Russian scholar, explains why the US military
cannot work with Russia on Syria. On CNN now.
Points: Russian military conducts war differently than US, far more civilian casualties, conducts terrorism and blames other parties. These methods put US troops at grave risk and US in jeopardy for war crimes.
Might be worth seeing full interview on CNN website.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)"blames other parties" is obviously a key tenet of republican "family values"
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)They are fighting groups either against Assad or groups assisting US interests there.
This interview shows how ignorant 45's foreign policy is.
Nitram
(22,800 posts)most inconvenient moment.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)from our western allies.
Russian military uses barbaric tactics, including carpet bombing their own cities. Civilian casualties mean nothing to them.
Nitram
(22,800 posts)former9thward
(32,003 posts)When Russian troops did the exact same things as they fought the Nazis on the eastern front. The U.S. did not seem to mind then.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)accused of their war crimes if we are in the middle of it with Russia.
The US provided materiels, but was not present on the Eastern front if I remember history correctly. But yes, the eastern front was the major factor in finally defeating Hitler.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)Even though they may have committed them no one cares. ISIS has no friends. The point is either we are going to fight ISIS or we are not. If we are not, fine with me, I think we should be out of the Middle East and let whatever happens there happen. But if we are going to fight a group like ISIS that has no rules whatsoever then it has to be done with brutal tactics. The Russians have been successful in Syria -- none of the western powers have been able to do anything. The U.S tactics of avoiding civilian casualties has failed in Iraq, failed in Syria and failed in Afghanistan.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)it's not like many politicians would prioritize that.
Of course the politicians also have to look at that other PR stuff.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)What war crimes would you like us to commit? You know, to properly emulate Putin and all?
former9thward
(32,003 posts)Why not? What is stopping anyone from charging? You seem like a real admirer of ISIS. Are you opposed with our alliance with Russia in WW II when they slaughtered civilians on the eastern front?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You do realize that that just creates more terrorists. It makes the matter worse, not better.
Can't believe I just read your post on a progressive website.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)If you are principled I would think anything posted here would upset you. If you read my original post you will notice I don't want us to fight ISIS. But if we are to do it then we must fight without restraints or it will end in failure and needless deaths. Conventional warfare has been a failure in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The Taliban with ISIS elements has increased its land area by 50% during the Obama war years. Do wish more of that failure and needless deaths?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)As a progressive who identifies specifically as an anarchist, I will continue to post here, with or without your permission.
I shouldn't have had to explain that at all, but I'm feeling charitable, so today's lesson is on me.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)I don't need your permission either. I just thought it was ironic that an anarchist would be complaining. Of course you ignored the central questions. I guess anarchy has no answer for them.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And you obviously know nothing about anarchist philosophy.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)There is pretty much no way to avoid civilian casualties when it comes to urban warfare.
Anything you see in the news about how humane we conduct our wars is propaganda.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)I can assure you that you won't be able to foster an environment conducive to building a strong nation if you slaughtered civilians. You'll lose the trust of the locals and their leaders in a heartbeat - as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I spent 13 months as a mechanized infantry platoon leader in an area just north of Baghdad. I always thought it was laughable when I'd hear people in the US argue that the rules of engagement (ROE) were too strict and that was the reason Iraq was the mess it was. That certainly was not the case for me and my unit's area of responsibility. If we felt threatened, lethal force was easily justified and never questioned. I don't care to go into detailed accounts, but I dealt with my fair share of civilian casualties due to a lenient ROE and never was anyone in my platoon or myself questioned or called out on it. A kid got shot by one of my Soldiers during a firefight? No problem. He shouldn't have been there. A white van filled with candy and two (dead) civilians was shot by one of my vehicles with it's main gun? No problem. It shouldn't have been there. I've got way more stories like this that I was a part of than I care to admit. (For what it's worth, these sorts of incidents weigh heavily on my conscience even 13 years later - just as they did when I was there dealing with them).
For subjugation and colonial-style imperialism brute force with no regard for civilian casualties works but it will not work for the building of stable democracies as we hope to do in the Middle East. With that in mind, I don't believe it is possible to be successful in our endeavors in the Middle East by our standards.
Yes, I agree with you. To defeat ISIS brutality is required. However, when the are eliminated, something else will come in and fill the power vacuum. In defeating ISIS we will have alienated the people that we wish to build a nation with and we will not be a part of their nation's rebuilding as we will have no legitimacy or support from the civilians. In absence of our ability to do so, we leave it wide open for a faction we may have no control over (or stomachs for tolerating) to take charge. Again, the potential for another ISIS or worse.
Edit to add:
I agree with you, that we should just leave the Middle East and let them sort it out. However a part of me does feel like we do owe it to the people there to be a major part of the solution. After all, it is our policies that turned the Middle East into the place it is now. However, the thought of throwing away more lives and money into the problem over there is idiotic in my view.
Hindsite is always 20:20, but had we dumped a trillion dollars into renewables and infrastructure in the US and made energy independence a national priority after September 11th instead of iraq, we'd all be s lot better off right now and free from the entanglements in the Middle East.
former9thward
(32,003 posts)If you were north of Baghdad, I was in Samarra in 03-4 so maybe we walked on some of the same wonderful real estate. I have spent time, for one reason or the other, in almost all of the countries that we call the Middle East. That does not make me an authority on anything but I don't think those people want conventional democracy and we need to just get out of that region.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Actually I was one fob over from FOB warhorse (Baqubah, Iraq) at FOB Gabe my company's sector started just 3 miles north of Sadr City (a notorious neighborhood of north Baghdad) and stopped just at the southern outskirts of Baqubah. I inadvertently found myself involved in a lot of action in Baqubah as I had to travel through it to get to my base.
We relieved an artillery battalion from the 4th ID in Feb 2004.
Iraq sucked. That's really all I have to say about that.
oasis
(49,382 posts)wishstar
(5,269 posts)former9thward
(32,003 posts)He had steadily increased our presence there. A bad mistake in my view.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)How are things in Moscow right now?
former9thward
(32,003 posts)Please respond and give us relief.
Response to former9thward (Reply #20)
Post removed