Retired Army General Explains Why We Lost in Afghanistan and Iraq

Army lieutenant general Daniel Bolger, who recently retired from the service after multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, has written a book called Why We Lost. Long story short, he says we never had a chance:

I am going to have to get this book
I think we all knew both this wars were going to be waste in end.
This general tells it like it is.

“By next Memorial Day, who’s going to say that we won these two wars?” Bolger said in an interview Thursday. “We committed ourselves to counterinsurgency without having a real discussion between the military and civilian leadership, and the American population —‘Hey, are you good with this? Do you want to stay here for 30 or 40 years like the Korean peninsula, or are you going to run out of energy?’ It’s obvious: we ran out of energy.

www.motherjones.com...

a reply to: nighthawk1954



Maybe he will clarify why we were at "War" in the first place ....


"War" he says heh....more like genocide....

a reply to: nighthawk1954
I just ordered his book.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Hey, are you good with this? Do you want to stay here for 30 or 40 years like the Korean peninsula, or are you going to run out of energy?’ It’s obvious: we ran out of energy.

Just like Vietnam. There they had jungle and tunnels, in Afghanistan they had mountains and caves.

A useless little un-winnable war. The warmongers didn't lose, though. Them and the factories for war, they won. A nice little useless protracted war to bleed the nations blood and treasure over, then declare peace with honor or some such crap. My generation had Vietnam, this one had Afghanistan.

Who's next?

a reply to: intrptr
It might be us?????

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Thats exactly it.

Being at "war" implies that both sides have an equal opportunity at winning. The US attacks nations which have no or very little means of self defense (which is why we wont attack Russia), so to refer to these crimes against humanity as genocides is correct.

Iraq is so pathetic that the first Iraq "war" in 1991 lasted 100 hours.

Afghanistan has no army, no navy, no marines, no conscription of any kind, no military hardware, no nothing.

Even if a person believes the official story of 9/11. the people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

As a matter of fact, most of them have never heard of 9/11. The "insurgents" are nothing more than ordinary citizens who are fighting our illegal and immoral occupation.

The US defines "winning" as killing everyone who wants us out of their countries. The foreign citizens will never stop fighting until the occupiers leave just as we would defend ourselves if we were attacked, invaded and occupied.

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
a reply to: intrptr
It might be us?????

Aren't we already subjugated?

a reply to: gladtobehere


You sir are 100 percent correct!

(Applause)

You explained exactly what I was thinking !


Thank you !!!

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Afghanistan is a barbaric and often very cruel people, they do not keep there word as a small british expeditionary force whom had made treaty with some of the clan's found out and were massacred.
Attemtping to impose peace upon a culture that has been in fighting for at least the last 2000 years through various conquests which hardly left there mark with the exception of Religeous imprint's such as Islam and before that Buddhism. Alexander the great, Ghengis khan and several other warlord's swept through and even founded settlement and even city's but they all fell to dust with only the constant inter tribal bikkering remaining, indeed the lowest tribe whom every one bullied are descendant's of Mongul warrior's and they are though numerous the weakest tribe there.
The ONLY way to conquer a land like that is to go totally medievil, Conquer and destroy absolutely and throw out modern morality and articles of war but we can not do that without losing the war at home and for our own soul's.
So from day one many whom knew of that barbaric land and especially british and indian historians could have told of the outcome, The penny Jezail or some call it the Jebail. there was a poem penned by a victorian soldier about how cheap life was in afghanistan, cant' find it but here is some info on the rifle they made themselve's with great range and there use as snipers from the hill's to pick our soldiers off.
www.warlordsofafghanistan.com...
In short there are some places we should never have gone and also we should never have allowed to come here, they are not fear worthy but there un trustworthiness as a disparate nation is historically recorded as is there unmerciful slaughter of unarmed men, woman and children.

a reply to: gladtobehere

They do have an Army, Air Force and military hardware. Besides that faux pas, I agree with your post.



en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: gladtobehere

You're correct but make the mistake of assuming war mean two opposing armies fighting. This war(rightly or wrongly) was a war on terrorists not a conventional war. No such war can ever be won against terrorists because by their nature they are part civilian and part martial. The British had the same in Northern Ireland. Who is your friend and who is your enemy? Terrorists swap between being civilian and being military at will therein lies the difficulty for any army. Kill a man with a gun who is about to kill you, his friends come along and remove the gun and you've just killed a civilian. Can you not see the inherent dangers of that situation. That in pure form was Afghanistan. You all jump up and decry the army when god forbid they've killed civilians but this is the reality on the ground. That's why there so many killed by people who were friends one day, the next the enemy. Exactly the same as Vietnam. the majority of the enemy wore no uniform to identify them as"the enemy". So who do you kill when the line is blurred between civilians and your true enemy.

0a reply to: nighthawk1954 Thank you for this, I am looking forward to the book. I note Alexander of Macedonia went thru Afghan on the way to India, but on the way back, he went around. Maybe we should give it back to Russia, you know, as a peace offering.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Pretty much agree with hims.

USA (Plus my own UK) ran in gun ho without any real plan like Vietnam.

Yeah it may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But the glory of war fades and unless there is a REAL and CLEAR reason for being there which there wasn't , especially for Iraq the the public will turn against it. And you cant win a war without public support.

originally posted by: crazyewok

But the glory of war fades and unless there is a REAL and CLEAR reason for being there which there wasn't , especially for Iraq the the public will turn against it. And you cant win a war without public support.

You said it amigo!!

a reply to: nighthawk1954

I'd recommend Rachel Maddow's book 'Drift', if you're into something like that.

It kinda lays out the idea that unless we can agree to an expensive, total war then we're going to 'lose' every war we fight in.

I also recommend the McNamara documentary 'The Fog of War':

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: nighthawk1954
The ONLY way to conquer a land like that is to go totally medievil, Conquer and destroy absolutely and throw out modern morality and articles of war but we can not do that without losing the war at home and for our own soul's.

Actually, I'd say the Russians tried that...the Afghans beat them too.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Nah the ruskies did some villages but they afghan's used the terrain and caves to escape as well as having CIA and SAS trainers and Advisers, plus lot's of equipment, it was still the cold war and the west did not want the soviet block to grow any larger (it is coming back but not soviet, still we may still see ww3 in the future between the west and east blocks especially with Iran gaining nuclear tech and joining the new east block).
Also the rusky's had the international media breathing down there neck's every time they farted over there.

What was the US goal in both conflicts? In Afganistan it was basicaly a punative action to warn any nation that allowed terrorist who are going to target the US what would happen. This lesson has been taught before on a smaller scale but, the nature of 911 made the lesson much larger this time. That is pretty much what they did.

In Iraq it was simply to remove Iraq as an on going threat to the Arab states and the oil that flows from them. Again that has been accomplished. If you think the goal was nation building or some such nonsense then sure it did not work and a a loss. However from strategic military stand point they were both big wins.

a reply to: MrSpad

Since the war on terror was declared more terrorism around the world has occured than just prior, the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and simply Bush Jr wanting to best Bush Snr and get the oil for his company or it's subsidiary's while also totally destabilizing that area and letting the like's of the Saudi royal family off as they are Allies (one prince Bandar is supposed to have a Harem of Blond children kidnapped form Europe and America that the US state department know's about and does nothing.
That was a total failure and effected the cost of Oil and our economy's, mind you He made an absolute fortune out of it as western oil prices skyrocketed, Libya on our part Britain and France was exactly the same and has had the same effect and as for Afghanistan the Real Reason was to build a Oil Pipline through Helmans which never materialised to take oil from Khazakstan to western China which Russia is now doing so it was a total and unmitigated Failure except in such as you were told it was for in which case they kicked the hornet's nest and we will have to face new more underground violent terrorist sect's for decades to come and new attrocity's, they could have wiped them out but that was never there intention.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: MrSpad

Since the war on terror was declared more terrorism around the world has occured than just prior, the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and simply Bush Jr wanting to best Bush Snr and get the oil for his company or it's subsidiary's while also totally destabilizing that area and letting the like's of the Saudi royal family off as they are Allies (one prince Bandar is supposed to have a Harem of Blond children kidnapped form Europe and America that the US state department know's about and does nothing.
That was a total failure and effected the cost of Oil and our economy's, mind you He made an absolute fortune out of it as western oil prices skyrocketed, Libya on our part Britain and France was exactly the same and has had the same effect and as for Afghanistan the Real Reason was to build a Oil Pipline through Helmans which never materialised to take oil from Khazakstan to western China which Russia is now doing so it was a total and unmitigated Failure except in such as you were told it was for in which case they kicked the hornet's nest and we will have to face new more underground violent terrorist sect's for decades to come and new attrocity's, they could have wiped them out but that was never there intention.

You mistake the War on Terror as war to stop all terrorism, it is not. It is a war to stop terror attackes against the US. Something it has been incredibly successful at.