Like it or not, the war in Afghanistan is a necessary evil. It must be fought and WON. There is where Al Qaeda is, and also the Taliban. Gen McChrystal says he needs more troops/support to win. Obama says it will be several weeks before he makes a decision on what course of action to take. Meanwhile our troops are outnumbered, outgunned, and basically surrounded. Yet, they fight on, despite Obama's non-support. One survivor of the attack on COP Keating said, "We have lost everything, but no one gives a shit". The camp was literally burned to the ground, and the soldiers were left with nothing but the clothes they had on, and their weapons. Morale, what morale. They are dedicated to winning, but they must be assured they have our support. Obama is showing none of that support. Up to this point, ALL of his plans, programs, ideas have been an 'emergency', or a 'hurry up, we have to get this done now'. Why can't he get off his ass and give Gen McChrystal what he needs?NOW! Fucking asshole......
It will be 2 to 3 months until they will arrive on the ground; in the middle of winter when there is a lull in the fighting. He knows he has time to try to get it right. Hmmm, thoughtfulness, getting opinions from a large selection of advisers. Most unlike Ex-president G.W. Bush. How many of our service men and women lost their lives or limbs due to his poor planning? And, how many Iraqi's?
Bullshit mattradd. If he made the decision tommorrow, troop movements would start tomorrow. Been there, done that. If he waits several weeks, by your accounting, it will be spring before reinforcements get there. Winter lull in the fighting, my ass. Did the Afghanis stop fighting the Russians during the winter months...fuck no. Give up on the Bush bashing, he's long gone. Afghanistan is Obama's war, and he better win it.
It's October now. Two to three months from now would make it December or January, February at the latest, still winter. See attachment for definition of "lull." It does not meet a total stopping the fight, but definitely a significant reduction, and not the same degree of vigilance that is needed during the summer months. Yes, you probably could move that many troops in a shorter amount of time, but not all the support that they would need. Bush bashing? So now one cannot speak of anything he did unless it was positive, because that's the past, and that's "bashing." I've heard plenty of, Carter and Clinton bashing here on the boards, and much of it was legitimate criticism. But, it's hands off of Ex-president George W. Bush, according to you. Oh, you are the one doing the "bashing," since you are the one calling our President a name, while I gave Ex-president George W. Bush his appropriate title.
Obviously, you've never participated in a mass troop/equipment movement. I have. The entire 82nd Airborne men/equipment, from the U.S.to the middle-east desert in 2 weeks. Ever hear of Operation Bright Star? That would make it mid to late October if started tomorrow, as you said. Damn right I'm bashing Obama. Also did so to Bush when need be. But I'm talking about Obama's running of the Afghan war, and his decisions, or lack of, that affect the ability of American troops to succeed. You lefties seem to have plenty of hindsight, but not much foresight. What's happened has happened, nothing we can do will change that. We do need, however, to see that correct decisions are made for a successful outcome in Afghanistan.
And, where are those 40k troops coming from o expert, and in two weeks? Perhaps that is what is being deliberated? With many men and women having served 3 and 4 tours of duty in Irag and Afghanistan, it seems like we're running very thin on troops. And, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm a lefty. I know you like to make things easy on yourself to divide everyone into lefties and righties.
"We do need, however, to see that correct decisions are made for a successful outcome in Afghanistan." Often with scarce resources, it takes more time to do so. I think conditions in the military are much different now than they were when you participated in Operation Bright Star.
of trying to fight a "limited" war.
Sounds like LBJ in Vietnam, personally picking targets and setting strategy and not using his commanders on the ground effectively.
If you are going to be there, get in and get it done!! Otherwise get out.
I can hear the chants now...
HEY HEY, BARACK HUSSIEN, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY
HEY HEY, BARACK HUSSIeN, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY
-- Modified on 10/11/2009 2:52:04 PM
And if you get a chance, I would highly recommend the link below for spme great reading!!
-- Modified on 10/12/2009 9:55:59 AM
you're JUST NOW figuring that out?.I would really rather you speak frankly instead of sugar-coating your ass-essment.
Start with a false premise and go downhill from there.
"Like it or not, the war in Afghanistan is a necessary evil."
Who says - you?
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
Genghis Khan overran everything in his path, laid waste to a large part of the known world - and was broken by Afghanistan.
The British Empire crashed and burned in Afghanistan.
The Soviet Union got it's ass kicked in Afghanistan.
We should have displaced the Taliban as punishment for 9/11 and their support of Bin Laden - and promptly got the hell out with a promise to return and do it again if they didn't behave.
Why don't we meet at Chickie and Pete's on Columbus Blvd., in Philly, and discuss this face to face, over a beer? I'll buy.
but we need someplace in the middle - how's Denver or Chicago for ya?
I have relatives in SoCal, actually, that's where I grew up. Meet you there and make it easy on you. Looking forward to it.
I'm supposed to be afraid of you.
How's that freedom to say what you think that you fought for going?
The freedom I wore the uniform to preserve is doing just fine out here.
-- Modified on 10/11/2009 8:18:35 PM
Afraid of me? I'm 67 years old. If that terrifies you, then your a bigger pussy than I expected.
I said "oh I get it - I'm supposed to be afraid of you."
People behind keyboards are the least scary people I know.
-- Modified on 10/12/2009 4:16:54 PM
I'd like to send you a PM but your hiding behind your alias.
Now what's your problem?
-- Modified on 10/13/2009 9:19:33 AM
Slaughter in the Mountain Passes
A magazine based in Boston, the North American Review, published a remarkably extensive and timely account titled “The English in Afghanistan” six months later, in July 1842. It contained this vivid description (some antiquated spellings have been left intact):
On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…
The troops kept on, and awful scenes ensued. Without food, mangled and cut to pieces, each one caring only for himself, all subordination had fled; and the soldiers of the forty-fourth English regiment are reported to have knocked down their officers with the butts of their muskets.
On the 13th of January, just seven days after the retreat commenced, one man, bloody and torn, mounted on a miserable pony, and pursued by horsemen, was seen riding furiously across the plains to Jellalabad. That was Dr. Brydon, the sole person to tell the tale of the passage of Khourd Caboul.
More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. The garrison there lit signal fires and sounded bugles to guide other British survivors to safety, but after several days they realized that Brydon would be the only one. It was believed the Afghans let him live so he could tell the grisly story.
-- Modified on 10/11/2009 12:02:04 PM
Nice read, but what does that have to do with the present day situation? Did the British have troop transports, helicopter gunships, B-1, and B-52 bombers, Predator UAV's, A-10 ground attack aircraft, artillery?
No - the Soviets did, and it didn't do them any more good than it has us.
Seen how the Vietnamese are doing these days? No, I guess not - since you're having trouble with this whole 'history' concept.
Really - what are you suggesting we 'win'? What constitutes 'winning'? Does the entire Afghan nation have to kneel and tug it's collective forelock? Register Republican? Become Baptist?
We ousted the Taliban and we can eve pretend we drove Bin Laden into Pakistan. Time to declare victory and go home. With any luck our withdrawal will be more successful than that of the British.
cannot be won in a generation but slowly it is happening. I do not dispute the ill-fated military excursions of armies past.
While Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires; the country is also the birthplace of terrorism. Have you forgotten 9-11? If we would have gone in and gone out immediately as you said; Al Qaida would be recruiting and training new Jihadists to kill Americans.
To fight terrorism requires a strong military presence and winning the hearts and minds of the people. Our counterinsurgency programs include our soldiers getting out of their humvees and walking the walk amongst the villagers.
More importantly, we are offering Afghanis and potential terrorists hope, hope for a future beyond violence. This hope is being promulgated not by an M-16 but by women. Women throughout the middle-east and specifically in Afghanistan are rising and nudging a backwards 1000 year culture to an enlighten future. This future can only be realized by our presence. If we leave, all the progress will be for naught. Women will be abused and the cycle of violence will continue.
-- Modified on 10/11/2009 7:15:44 PM
March, 2009. Obama gave a speech in which he declared, " Afghanistan is a war of necessity." Good enough for you?
I am a progessive - that means I think for myself.
You must have me confused with some Bush/Neocon/FoxNews robot like the ones shouting people down here. The ones who are threatened by any idea other than 'kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out'.
Thinking - try it, it's really not that scary.
-- Modified on 10/13/2009 9:19:00 AM
We were winning the war in Afghanistan until Bush decided to go after the guy who tried to kill his daddy... So Obama inherited the fiasco in Iraq and HE'S the asshole???
FE51, if you want Bush to be an asshole, then he is, I don't care. But Obama most certainly is the present day asshole sitting in the Oval Office.
"the war in Afghanistan is a necessary evil. It must be fought and WON."
Now why is this? Let's see, the primary cliche is "if the Taliban take over, they will allow the terrorist training camps to florish." Well, maybe (although school of thought is they blame al queda for thier removal and will not allow this) but- why are terrorist training camps necessary to plan terrorist acts? You've been watching that stock footage of the marine style training they gave some of those guys.
In fact, the only real training needed for the 9/11 terrorist was flight school training for some of the pilots which they got elsewhere including in the US. The planning for the operation could have taken place in Afghan training camps or in Chicago.
The Oklahoma city bombing was planned and executed in the United States.
The bottom line is that the "they are going to start the training camps again" rationale is a weak one and does not justify the war. And with the improved Predator missiles, we could pretty much vaporize any active training out in the open anyway.
See above, ROFLMAO reply about Obama's speech.
you could argue it the other way. an al-qaeda victory in Afghanistan, which presumably means tha they take over the reins of the Afghan gov't [whose writs barely extends beyond the suburbs of Kabul] makes more vulnerable to the methods and tools of US coercion. Say what you want about it's effectiveness, but the UsSsures knows how to deliver airstrikes. Idf al-qaeda remains dispersed throughout the mountain fastnessess of Afghanistan, we have to hunt them down and root them out.
An al-qaeda victory would be tough on the everyday Afghani, but the everyday Afghani takes poorly to any central governemrnt and is no more likely to follow the dictates of al-qaeda than the Russinas or the Russian propped-up Afghan commies who preceeded the Taliban.
We should not delude ourselves that we're ever going to install a competent central gov't in Afghanistan. That being the case, what exaxctly are our objectives there? To stay there until we decide to leave? To flank Iran's eastern border? To show the flag and hope to cow the Islamofascists?
Obama may indeed be a fucking asshole, but it takes more than the wait time for a decision re Afghanistan troops levels to prove the case to a certainty.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, you dumbass, but the United States Armed Forces is spread quite thin right now. You talk as if there are just 40,000 men and women just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting to be ordered into battle. They work every damn day, and sending that much manpower into one locale has implications. It has implications in other theaters, and implications to the defense of this country. You don't shift that many resources on a fucking whim.
People like you who abhor thoughtful decision-making in favor of brash and thoughtless destruction had your say twice over the last 8 years, and look what it lead to. You should be shamed into shutting the fuck up at this point.
received is way to defeat this nation's resolve to win the war on terror. While President Obama is going around the world, denouncing our country and winning medals our brave and women who are risking their lives to protect and preserve the US Consitution are being backstabbed.
I wonder how long Sec. of Defense Robert Gates will put up with this shit?
On one hand he doesn’t want to upset the libs who would just as soon pull out tomorrow.
On the other hand he doesn’t want to be seen as losing the war.
I truly believe that he would like to win (which can be defined several ways), but he can’t make up his mind.
Sounds like we risk this being LBJ all over again with BHO trying to figure out how to fight a limited war. Either of the first two choices would be better.
"Sounds like we risk this being LBJ all over again..." Hmmm! Well, ya, he is on the horn of a dilema, but there are 2 big difference between his dilema and LBJ's predicament. 1. The number of dead soldiers is way less than during the Viet Nam war. 2. No draft. We probably could have stayed in Viet Nam much longer if the casualties were much lower, and if we could have supported the war without using a draft. Can you image what would have happened if President George W. Bush had tried to go into Iraq and Afghanistan using a draft to supply troops. I doubt if we would have ever entered into those wars if that was ever thought to be an option. There was not the stomach for it, even with the need for revenge for 9/11.
Speaking of stomach, We're presently at approximately 5000 dead in I&A. Compared to the 58,000 during Vietnam, 5000 seems like a lot today to most people. So the public's threshold of pain is much lower today. Unless there in another massive attack here or something like that, God forbid.
BHO is definitely in a tuff spot. But it's no time for vacillation or extra study.
It would be real easy to make a quip about how BHO was so quick to decide the outcome for 20% of our economy in perpetuity, but not now.
I want a quick decision, but I also don't want one more dead or wounded than is absolutely required.
There is all this talk about how he must be absolutely sure before he commits 40K troops. Well what about the 80K already there? Why 100% focus on the new troops and seemingly NO focus on the present ones?