5
5
0
A soldier asked the commanding BG a variant of this question and was immediately shut down. I found it interesting and can’t stop thinking about it.
With the slowing of major activity in Afghanistan and rebuilding in Iraq, are we technically at war? If you believe so, with whom?
With the slowing of major activity in Afghanistan and rebuilding in Iraq, are we technically at war? If you believe so, with whom?
World Affairs
Warfare
International Affairs
Strategy
Philosophy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
3
3
0
The enemy is still there. Isis is still there just in a low-level capacity. It's kind of like if you stop taking the penicillin before the prescription ends, infection gets resistant to it. Iraq is still following it back into Anarchy and some places. It's kind of like not taking your penicillin for full duration of the prescription and cutting it off early as soon as the infection goes away but then the remaining virus gets resistant to treatment. in addition to this, corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the games we made her lost because the central government is too weak in the corruption continues. Something so this would happen in Vietnam.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I just finally watch the last episodes of Ken Burns Vietnam and so much of this sounds familiar to Vietnam as it does in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kurupt and Ruth the central government and a determined enemy like Isis, al-qaida the Communist North Vietnam and the Vietcong in the South.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's a three sided answer.
For us in the military, yes. Especially being in Afghanistan now, I'm getting notices of our fallen before the mainstream pushes it. We're very much at war.
Politicians, we are if it's something they're supportive of or demand to push for just as the annual NDAA that's been completed and signed the fastest since I first enlisted. Most politicians are stuck in their rhetoric that they think "Mission Accomplishment" from President Bush was enough.
The civilian population is a hit or miss. The further from a military town, the less likely they'll know we're still there, fighting and sometimes dying.
For us in the military, yes. Especially being in Afghanistan now, I'm getting notices of our fallen before the mainstream pushes it. We're very much at war.
Politicians, we are if it's something they're supportive of or demand to push for just as the annual NDAA that's been completed and signed the fastest since I first enlisted. Most politicians are stuck in their rhetoric that they think "Mission Accomplishment" from President Bush was enough.
The civilian population is a hit or miss. The further from a military town, the less likely they'll know we're still there, fighting and sometimes dying.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Thanks for the reply, SSG! Very astute of you to acknowledge the three sided nature of it. Do you think the lack of media attention is causing the general public to assume the war is over?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Initial over saturation of war coverage that turned into its current state of next to nothing of mainstream media's standards is a big part of it. Back in high school it was what is huge and effects my generation. Today, it's as if the MSM just out right ignores the ongoing conflicts unless it's brand new, it's about the death of another US service member, specific political leaning media that's picking on the POTUS for not visiting the troops but on the same breath presenting a positive light on domestic terrorist groups and their anti-military propaganda.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I remember when I joined in ‘09 it was because I saw a lot of news coverage from 9/11 and on. It’s unfortunate, but the news sometimes becomes the average American’s only view of the outside world.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google