Major Marine Offensive in Afghanistan is happening NOW

Which is similar to the assumptions made in Afghanistan the first time.

Which is similar to the assumptions made in Viet Nam.

We've got to stop proving the truth in that adage about "fighting the last war". Our military has to embrace the concepts of proactive warfare and non-traditional ops. Before folks sling shit at a president (the natural scapegoat since questioning the military is decidely unAmerican), you can simply look into just how the military really handles change. They can't even "train" properly anymore. They simply "demonstrate" what they're granddaddies called fightin'.

Unless you're talking on a tactical level, proactive warfare seems about the wrongest concept I can think of. To avoid being a complete clusterfuck it would require strategic foresight bordering on the supernatural. Even at its simplest incarnation of 'Fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here' it has been proven a failure.

The increased pressure on Afghanistan was the point of removing troops from Iraq. I consider this a good thing, given the productive use the Taliban have made of the recovery time our misadventure in Iraq gave them, but I don't imagine this new operation will be even the beginning of the end of our involvement in the Stan.

One positive note is that the Afghani factions are a little more clear cut than they are in Iraq, and the Dari and Pashtun tribes still hate the Taliban more than they hate us. Everyone there is able to agree that the assholes burning little girls' schools down are the bad guys.

And here we go, specifically aimed at the ADHD generation of war supporters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

Is there a worse reason to throw manpower into a war that quite obviously doesnt work through manpower than keeping easily distracted people ... I dont know, entertained? Cause thats what this reads like.
I understand completely the problems that stem from a war going on for ages without anything to show for it, when support starts to dwindle, but sorry, saying that the Iraq war made people expect a quick, bombastic little success and then giving an insane timeframe of one year? Oh please.

Also, I second stelios thoughts. Proactive warfare in a country like afghanistan? Against an enemy who is pretty much build into the landscape itself? Well, I sure as hell would like to see those generals figuring out how to get that working.
Afghanistan is going to be either a long, dirty slog of primarily infantry-based operations, or at one point in the not too distant future, the NATO will learn what a dozen other invaders learned over the years: Afghanistan is not a country you can win a war against. I sincerely hope for the troops there that the latter is the case, and soon. Hell, there isnt even anything left to prove really, as we know now that there are far more dangerous, and far better equipped terror groups operating on this world.

Even the term "war" seems wrong for PR reasons: it's a half-assed occupation with one seedy group of warlords as allies, others doing whatever the hell they want in their cantons, and the Taliban undergoing live training exercises with our troops.

NATO seems less committed than the British in Northern Ireland -- how the hell is that a recipe for any long term success?