Chile Forum

john wrote:No surprise, as Generals rarely admit that a war, they are involved in, cannot be won. What's hard to fathom is why their advice is so readily accepted by Congress and the Oval Office.

Afghan war whistleblower Daniel Davis: 'I had to speak out - lives are at stake'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... niel-davis

nwdiver wrote:

john wrote:No surprise, as Generals rarely admit that a war, they are involved in, cannot be won. What's hard to fathom is why their advice is so readily accepted by Congress and the Oval Office.

Afghan war whistleblower Daniel Davis: 'I had to speak out - lives are at stake'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... niel-davis

For a thousand years nobody has ever invaded and subjugated Afghanistan. Even the Emirs of old or the modern President rule at the leisure of the various warlords, opps I mean Governors. I agreed with the NATO move to over through the brutal Taliban, but now it’s time to assist the Government not fight its war for it.

patagoniax wrote:

john wrote:No surprise, as Generals rarely admit that a war, they are involved in, cannot be won.

Your misunderstanding is a common one: that wars necessarily are "won" or "lost."

patagoniax wrote:Oh, yes: again, your thread on Afghanistan has nothing to do with Chile, although we could segue to...

patagoniax wrote:

john wrote:No surprise, as Generals rarely admit that a war, they are involved in, cannot be won.

Your misunderstanding is a common one: that wars necessarily are "won" or "lost."

Throughout history there are many examples of wars (by any other name) which were concluded or at least suspended indefinitely in other ways than unambiguous winning and losing.

Since we have been recently observing the failed n-Korean missile launch and related conditions, it may be well to remember that the Korean War still isn't over, nor were there clear winners nor losers when the armistice/cease-fire was negotiated half a century ago.

And sometimes a negotiated settlement can turn out better for all involved than having a war decisively "won."

A second point is that since there is no military junta in charge of the US action in Afghanistan, but instead a cabal of incompetent civilians, you might more reasonably and accurately recognise the latter's greater and ultimate responsibility, and perhaps re-word your comments to something like " ... a dithering and uncommitted civilian administration might not be able to admit that their current adventure is unlikely to bring about the most desirable conclusion..."

Oh, yes: again, your thread on Afghanistan has nothing to do with Chile, although we could segue to discuss the concept of negotiated settlements ending armed conflicts in the history of Chile, such as the Pacto de Tregua entre Chile y Bolivia en 1844. This established an indefinite ceasefire between the signatory countries. It was not until the treaty of 1904 that the actual war (War of the Pacific) was finally ended between those countries. Part of the negotiated settlement involved in that treaty (as opposed to the prevailing notion of an unconditional surrender by Bolivia) involved the payment of what was then a great deal of money to Bolivia by Chile. But that is another story, for another thread and another time.