How do you feel when civilians tell you that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is strictly political?

2016-10-28T08:18:10-04:00

I have heard this saying a few times. What are your thoughts?

UPDATE:
Lots of great responses on here, I'm glad that I was able to get a lot of honest answers. When I say political gain, what I mean is that we are starting war for profits and/or resources. Does anyone here believe that it is wrong to invade a country to take precious resources, and not to establish a democracy or stop wrongful actions performed by another government? By the way, none of these questions I'm asking are biased, I am simply asking to gain knowledge and understand the facts.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Oct 28 at 2016 8:19 AM

2016-10-28T08:19:12-04:00

That they must be smoking dope, or are libtards.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 8:21 AM

2016-10-28T08:21:27-04:00

Yes politics are involved but Afghanistan is also a strategic location military wise. Iraq was because Bush was convinced that they had WMDs and civilians don't understand war fighting so they say BS.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 8:22 AM

2016-10-28T08:22:27-04:00

Told one to enlist go over and find out for themselves...

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 8:26 AM

2016-10-28T08:26:53-04:00

It's their opinion; and I'm performing my duties so they can voice their opinion.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 28 at 2016 8:34 AM

2016-10-28T08:34:32-04:00

Regardless of what the opinion, or the truth is. We are expected to obey lawful orders of commissioned officers and the President of the United States.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 28 at 2016 8:37 AM

2016-10-28T08:37:49-04:00

"War is the continuation of politics through other means" (Clausewitz, On War). Simply put all wars are strictly political. One group has a policy that the other group should do or cease doing something, and use war to achieve said goal. So, yes, the wars are absolutely political.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Oct 28 at 2016 8:45 AM

2016-10-28T08:45:36-04:00

Everything is political, everything. Do not think for an instant that the DOD is anything but political. War is a political tool used when diplomacy fails to yield what we want. Do you think it was different in World War 1, World War 2 maybe??? Look at the history there...It was political. Does not change the fact that we do as ordered.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 8:52 AM

2016-10-28T08:52:26-04:00

Lots of great responses on here, I'm glad that I was able to get a lot of honest answers. When I say political gain, what I mean is that we are starting war for profits and/or resources. Does anyone here believe that it is wrong to invade a country to take precious resources, and not to establish a democracy or stop wrongful actions performed by another government? By the way, none of these questions I'm asking are biased, I am simply asking to gain knowledge and understand the facts.

Thanks

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 9:02 AM

2016-10-28T09:02:19-04:00

As much as I hate to quote Clausewitz, loosely as the original is in old German and each translation is different, "war is the continuation of politics by other means."

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Oct 28 at 2016 9:10 AM

2016-10-28T09:10:18-04:00

Politics? ...tell that to my Soldiers that are missing limbs, friend's children that no longer have parents and my wife who has spent years alone raising my daughter...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 28 at 2016 9:22 AM

2016-10-28T09:22:33-04:00

Of course it's political. All war is political. So what's your point? (I love confusing the bastards)

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 28 at 2016 9:23 AM

2016-10-28T09:23:10-04:00

Political... ??? remind them of the fact a Dictator is gone and he will not be using Chemical weapons to kill thousands of People a day...

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 28 at 2016 9:35 AM

2016-10-28T09:35:47-04:00

It's true... if you think 9/11 was political

Response by SPC James Harsh made Oct 28 at 2016 9:36 AM

2016-10-28T09:36:46-04:00

It's a complicated question, for all intents and purposes they're wrong.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 9:39 AM

2016-10-28T09:39:36-04:00

If that's what they think, so be it. Ours is not to question the politics of it. We get told to go and do our mission and come home. That's what we focus on.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Oct 28 at 2016 9:40 AM

2016-10-28T09:40:29-04:00

Well aside from the vagueness of the question, they are not incorrect. Foreign politics do play a factor when you are occupying another sovereign nation.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 28 at 2016 9:57 AM

2016-10-28T09:57:00-04:00

I'll add to CPT Jack Durish comment that all wars are political with what rock did you grow up under?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 10:11 AM

2016-10-28T10:11:58-04:00

I may not understand your question, but of course it's political.
All war is political, the military is the enforcement branch of foreign policy. We just have to hope that the politics we're killing people for are the right ones.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 10:37 AM

2016-10-28T10:37:04-04:00

All wars are political.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Oct 28 at 2016 11:08 AM

2016-10-28T11:08:46-04:00

As with all Wars I think you really have to wait for the War to be finished for 5-10 years before you make a judgement. Neither one is finished yet. Yet even after the 5-10 year threshold views will change over time. Also, when looking at the outcome you have to look at alternate scenarios that could have happened had there been no intervention.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2016 11:08 AM

2016-10-28T11:08:53-04:00

I don't know if there are you at home anymore since if we built the Keystone XL pipeline like we were supposed to thank you mr. President we could get oil for almost nothing no political issues at all I would have to deal with it and having a thousand-year-old schism because Canada has a hundred and fifty years of oil and I forget how much other natural resources that you would have to go fight somebody for. the only fight is with Greenpeace The only fight is with Greenpeace who loves the Palestinians at who hates anything to do with technology that could actually be helpful. I'm going to Post article this weekend on global warming where are reservoirs put out more carbon CO2 emissions then many factories and cars but the Democrats don't want you to know about this because it doesn't work with their tax structure. I rent the Canadian paper and it's shocking that oil is being taxed while if you do Hydro you get Co2 emissions from the rotting vegetation to eat put a carbon tax on all the meat on the Mississippi River Amazon River Missouri River we shouldn't but they produce CO2 emissions.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 28 at 2016 11:27 AM

2016-10-28T11:27:34-04:00

On Some Level all things are "Political" but generally speaking, You attack US or directly Support Those that do, you should be Prepared for Retribution. As such I do not view Afghanistan as "Political". As a Historian though I view Iraq as classically "Political", Family Retribution for the Threats (impotent as they were) Saddam Made against Bush Sr.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Oct 28 at 2016 12:29 PM

2016-10-28T12:29:29-04:00

I tell them BS!!!, 1st it was the oil, then it was political, I say it is a holy war, now.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 28 at 2016 12:50 PM

2016-10-28T12:50:24-04:00

War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means, We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.

Clausewitz "On War" Chapter 1, Section 24, in the Princeton University Press translation (1976)

Variant translation: War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Oct 28 at 2016 12:56 PM

2016-10-28T12:56:05-04:00

Mostly just smile and nod my head when civilians babble about anything to do with the military. I'm not going to try to educate them and honestly could give a shit less what they think anything is about.

Response by PO1 Sean Reynolds made Oct 28 at 2016 1:23 PM

2016-10-28T13:23:10-04:00

First they are full of shit, secondly it should be a full blown action like the first/second gulf wars

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Oct 28 at 2016 1:39 PM

2016-10-28T13:39:48-04:00

The United States is engaged and has engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve its own objectives. Nations do this.

Next question.

Whether either or both were justified or even just, are different questions.

Response by LTC Leonard M. Manning, Sr made Oct 28 at 2016 2:18 PM

2016-10-28T14:18:09-04:00

Since the last "War" fought by the United States was World War II; I must agree with the other comments that fighting is a political action by governments. For what ever reason when diplomacy fails then governments commits its military forces to impose its will or its policies.

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Oct 28 at 2016 4:43 PM

2016-10-28T16:43:44-04:00

All wars are strictly political. We don't invade someone to prove our military strength. We didn't go to Europe to defeat the Nazi military. We went there to destroy their ability to project their political will. Remember that war is simply an extension of politics.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Oct 28 at 2016 10:53 PM

2016-10-28T22:53:21-04:00

People will run to the Old Dead Carl (Carl vonClauswitz, peace be upon him) standard "War is the continuation of politics by other means." I would not disagree. It has to be. War must be committed to by civilian government to secure the triangle of people, military, and government, another Clauswitzian tenet.

I would again go back to Old Dead Carl, in that we must not mistake the nature of the war for something that it is not. Here we run afoul. Afghanistan originally started essentially as a punitive expedition. Go there, get the guys who caused 9/11. Kill people, break their sh!t. We are good at that.

Then we couldn't find them all. Then we started to fight the Taliban, because they harbored UBL and AQ. Ok. Then we thought, well if we can get the people to form a democracy and secure them selves , secure their borders (the deterrent for transnational bad actors, which we struggle fighting) , they can freeze out the Taliban and prevent the next 9/11. Yea us. After all, we did not want to come back every few years and clean it out again. So off we went, still there. The Don't be a jerk school of counter insurgency. we had to leave one day...

What we did not plan on was that after dumping the best of the western world in blood and treasure for 15 years into their country did not rouse the other Afghan tribes and clans into action to really go after the Taliban en masse, make their villages valley by valley into a Taliban no-go zone, nor rally people to a central government, which they have a really quirky relationship with as a concept. I have to think that they think they will coexist, they do not feel they are on Death Ground (Sun Tzu Art of War) , and will simply muddle their way through when we leave. They will draw back into tribal and clan fiefdoms that vary valley by valley. They will make deals for immediate survival as they always have. Otherwise, I believe, they would be killing these guys left and right, denying them havens, and going for the jugular.

So it s political. They do not really believe in a strong central government. So if they don't believe in it, they won't die for it. If they won't die for it, it won't survive...that whole Clauswitzian triangle again.

Now, the average Civilian doesn't read Clauswitz, reads the wrong parts of Mao, reads the glib tactical crap of Sun Tzu, and nary a syllable of Mahan. They conveniently forget we were responding to an attack on the home land. They also do not understand the hundreds of previous years of fighting there, the Durand line, the Soviet War in any type of detail, nor the slow descent into chaos after they pulled out.

I also believe, that by saying political, they mean that it is some Illuminati aluminum foil hat conspiracy crap, vice a complex geopolitical and economic issue that they understand only superficially.

Iraq is a another story for another day.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Oct 29 at 2016 11:06 PM

2016-10-29T23:06:18-04:00

Last time I checked neither Iraq nor Afghanistan pay tribute, so what exactly are we taking? Life would be alot different if they did. Afghanistan's number one export to us is costing us in Law Enforcement, Prisons, and Health Care, not to mention the destruction of American Families. Similar problems are along the Afghan-Opium-Heroin transit routes from Central Asia, through the former Soviet states, into Europe. Afghanistan generates 15 times the legal requirement for opioids annually.

Iraq, while an oil producing nation does not make up a significant portion of our imports. For a long time Venezuela was our largest import. Then is was Saudi Arabia. Now we we are producing more than we had before.

The profiteering conspiracy is interesting. The contingency contracts the DoD use were bid sight unseen by the companies that won them through open competitive bids before there was even a war on the horizon. They are cost plus contracts with incentives, costing, set profit built in. It is how you execute a contract where we pass all the risk to the contractor. Look up LOGCAP. This goes back to before ODS. Contractors under LOGCAP came fast and furious and did a great job, too great of a job, so leaders decided we will use them again. The liberal use of contingency contracting was the post ODS "peace dividend" that cashed in 8 divisions and more importantly all the echelon above Corps logisitics capabilities. There are only a handful of corporations that can do stuff on that scale. There is nothing all that sculdugerous about it. A guy in a one bedroom apartment that runs an internet business can not surge this demand. You need Vinell, Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, Triple Canopy, Dynacorps, Vectrus, General Dynamics, L3, KBR, and Flour type operations to fight a war, unless you are going to fight it with a massive national mobilization, like that is going to happen any time soon. America loves its warriors class and the fact that no one really has to go see through social media level moral outrage On a battle field, we got people for that. So now we contract it and everyone is happy until the check shows up.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2016 7:45 AM

2016-11-01T07:45:36-04:00

I feel I have to agree with them. It saddens me to think of the young men and women that have lost their lives or been maimed fighting a war that just satisfies someones political agenda. But, we knew the consequences of enlisting into military service. I am proud of my military service, as I am sure most of the people reading this are. There are people that do not support the war. That is their right. This is what I tell people..."you have a right to your opinion. I am proud of my service and I fought for your right to express your opinion"...That usually shuts them up...

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2016 8:55 AM

2016-11-01T08:55:13-04:00

What part of "war is the continuation of politics through other means" do you not understand?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-11-01T09:32:53-04:00

All wars/conflicts are political. Military force is an extension of diplomacy (Clausewitz). Also, every nation has a need for resources. The question you are implying is whether those resources are being acquired for 'national purposes' or 'personal purposes.' This is exactly the conversation we are having in this and many previous elections. During Bush 41, we were questioning our purpose for conflict over Kuwait. Was it a national interest or oil? During Bush 43, we asked the same question about Iraq. We didn't ask this about Afghanistan because Osama Bid Laden was in Afghanistan and we had been attacked by terrorists. However, since the majority of terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, one must ask, 'why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?' Again, this brings us back to oil access. Finally, as the Obamas and Clintons have become exceedingly rich during and after their years in office, as well as many in Congress, the question about national gain and personal gain becomes paramount. With Clinton as SecState, traveling the world and making commitments of military and civilian aid while the Clinton Foundation received donations from many of those same countries, most are hard pressed to believe there was no relationship between the two actions and there was a 'pay to play' relationship.

So, to answer your question, you must decide, based on your own perspective, whether the U.S. is and has been engaged in military operations for a moral, ethical and legal reason. Where you sit, may change your perspective. Whether you have something to personally gain or lose may influence your decision. But, ultimately, the question you are asking is less about facts and more about perspective.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Nov 1 at 2016 1:04 PM

2016-11-01T13:04:52-04:00

"War is a continuation of politics by other means" ---- Clausewitz.......

Response by SGM Bill Johnson made Nov 1 at 2016 1:30 PM

2016-11-01T13:30:01-04:00

All war is strictly political. When negotiations fail, yo go to war to attain your political goals.

Response by PO2 Sam Tkach made Nov 1 at 2016 1:39 PM

2016-11-01T13:39:41-04:00

I have very strong feelings about it and because they are so strong that it inspired me to write a book. Feel free to check it out on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/one-fine-woman-jason-singer/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=8-1&keywords=one+fine+woman

Just to make sure, I wrote this book after I got out of the military, my book does not describe any actual events and all characters are fictional.

one fine woman: jason singer: 9781507736807: Amazon.com: Books

one fine woman [jason singer] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This play covers the court-martial of US Navy Petty Officer Jay Tabachnik, accused of attempted rape and murder of a female sailor

Response by SFC Thomas Butler made Nov 1 at 2016 2:34 PM

2016-11-01T14:34:04-04:00

Since every war is political, not too much.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 21 at 2016 11:59 AM

2016-11-21T11:59:36-05:00

With the world as it currently is, you have to put a dog in the fight.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 21 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-11-21T12:00:12-05:00

Can't be a sideline sandy......

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 8 at 2018 5:55 PM

2018-03-08T17:55:32-05:00

Every nation we have fought, we attempted to install democracy.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 8:40 AM

2018-06-21T08:40:54-04:00

I don’t care, most only spout the mindless ALT Left propaganda that they are fed in the media echo chamber and it doesn’t warrant a response. If I have a relationship and care about the person I may get into a discussion of the complexities of the situation. There are many facets. To paint it as a simple monolithic images is idiotic.