Afghanistan, more troops?

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The question is:

What kind and how much support? Or, indeed, pull out completely. The later is not a viable option. SPF2245, that's one possible solution, a small contingent to monitor and strike when appropriate. Not unlike Bidens idea of using the drones more, the troops less.

Like Iraq, the Afghans will eventually need to defend themselves. When that time comes and the troops begin to withdraw en masse I'm sure there will be plenty of Scotch drinking Afghans woefully sad at their departure.

You do have bubbles in your think tank! Why on earth would anyone listen to Biden and not the Generals in the field?

Either, more boots on the ground or pull out completely.

[Excaliber]

Biden is a pretty intelligent guy, I take his advice seriously (when he's not busy sticking his foot in his mouth).

I think the more drones less troops idea is short sided. That MIGHT maintain a status quo, but it would never end the conflict. It is also comes with inevitable civilian deaths. THAT is a huge problem. Even if it risks troops lives or there is a cost in troop lives because of a policy to limit civilian deaths, so be it. While that obviously sounds harsh in THIS conflict it is imperative. It's simple really, keep pissing of the locals and we will have NO chance of achieving our goals (what ever they are). The ONLY hope for a long term solution lays with the Afghans themselves. In the end it will cost MORE American lives if we deny our responsibilities to the locals.

Options in life are rarely a one or a zero, get in or get out.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber
I take it you have never read the "Art of War". This principle of winning the hearts and minds of the people goes back 1,000's of years. History shows over and over that "winning" a war militarily will not stand the test of time without the will of the people.

Now if that will is based on a better lifestyle, more security, money, is not as important as securing it in the first place. There is AMPLE reason to believe the Afghans DO want all of the above. For many years the Tabliban was despised there, the people fundamentally DO NOT want them in power. But what choice do they have? The Americans cannot defend them and they cannot defend themselves.

I support the request for additional troops, with an understanding of the goals to be achieved. Otherwise, we could be there for decades and accomplish nothing. If it is not possible to win the favor of the people then we should pull out the majority of troops and rely more heavily on "drone" missle strikes to kill the Taliban leadership. This will NOT result in a victory but it will buy time. The drone attacks kill many civilians, that really pisses off the people. But if we don't care about the people, no problem!

MODS: I had been thinking about starting a new thread on this subject, Afghan. Perhaps this post could be the start of that? Some editing of course required...

First I have read Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, and I actually have my paperback copy on the shelf right next to me. It has been there for years. I suggest you read the chapter "Waging "war". It talk about troop levels and protracted campains. That said, I don't base my knowledge on a book.

I served a combat tour in Iraq with the 1st Cav in a combat MOS (military Occupational Skill). I have actually been on the ground in the Middle East. You abviously don't understand the thinking of the culture there. The people do not respect weakness. From the guys I know that have served in Afghanistan, they say this is even more true than in Iraq. You are never going to build a nation in Afghanistan even close to Iraq. We need to concentrate on killing the enemy, and we need to expect a troop presence there for a long time.

You need to listen to the General on the ground in charge of operations. He is the expert. As Sun Tzu refers to him "The Respected One". "If wise, a commander is able to recognize changing curcumstances and to act expediently"." If courageous, he gains victory by seizing opportunity without hesitation" . The general on the ground has "recognized" the "changing curcumstances" in Afghanistan, and he has asked Obama for more troops so he can "gain victory without hesitation".

Obama needs to listen to the guys in the military on the ground. They are the experts, and have the best knowledge of what they need. My.02

[Excaliber]

...able to recognize changing curcumstances and to act expediently".

I agree with that, especially the expidiant part. I also agree we need to concentrate on killing the enemy. We will never be able to kill enough without support from the people. The changing circumstances are these, as I see it.

The enemy has stepped up it's game by whooing the people, providing for their needs and using civilian deaths as a propaganda tool. THEY are winning the hearts and minds of the people on the ground. This is a fundamental change from what we have seen in the past, when the Taliban was despised by the people. WE need to offer the people a reason to ally with us, as we have slowly done in Pakistan and Iraq. We will not win over all the people all the time, but we can make headway with the bulk of the country, the Government by doing so.

It has been suggested we burn the poppie fields, that could be a double edged sword. First of all drugs are NOT the primary source of income for the Taliban. It plays only a secondary role, it's an important goal, but only one aspect of a larger plan. What will you offer the farmers in exchange, who have now lost the livelyhood? That kind of thinking is what I'm talking about, meeting the needs of the people in the towns and villages. We MUST have their support to hope for any kind of long term stability.

I am absolutely convinced the people do not want the Taliban in control, but what do we offer them that is better?

A couple of thoughts on the warrior mentality. Being on the ground, in combat, does not a General make. It certainly provided worthy insights to be considered by command. There is a good reason military command does NOT have the final say on how a conflict is carried out. Like troops on the ground who don't know all the "what if's" involved, Generals on the ground are much the same. They are focused on their immediate goal, the Commander in Chief is able to see a bigger picture. That is a good way to wage a war, in my opinion.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I agree with that, especially the expidiant part. I also agree we need to concentrate on killing the enemy. We will never be able to kill enough without support from the people. The changing circumstances are these, as I see it.

The enemy has stepped up it's game by whooing the people, providing for their needs and using civilian deaths as a propaganda tool. THEY are winning the hearts and minds of the people on the ground. This is a fundamental change from what we have seen in the past, when the Taliban was despised by the people. WE need to offer the people a reason to ally with us, as we have slowly done in Pakistan and Iraq. We will not win over all the people all the time, but we can make headway with the bulk of the country, the Government by doing so.

It has been suggested we burn the poppie fields, that could be a double edged sword. First of all drugs are NOT the primary source of income for the Taliban. It plays only a secondary role, it's an important goal, but only one aspect of a larger plan. What will you offer the farmers in exchange, who have now lost the livelyhood? That kind of thinking is what I'm talking about, meeting the needs of the people in the towns and villages. We MUST have their support to hope for any kind of long term stability.

I am absolutely convinced the people do not want the Taliban in control, but what do we offer them that is better?

A couple of thoughts on the warrior mentality. Being on the ground, in combat, does not a General make. It certainly provided worthy insights to be considered by command. There is a good reason military command does NOT have the final say on how a conflict is carried out. Like troops on the ground who don't know all the "what if's" involved, Generals on the ground are much the same. They are focused on their immediate goal, the Commander in Chief is able to see a bigger picture. That is a good way to wage a war, in my opinion.

We could do what liberals firmly believe in doing. Those poor farmers, all those poor people, we could PAY them for doing nothing same as we pay the parasites here. We could give them food, clothing, and shelter [low rent] same as we do here. We could insist that no one say or do anything to harm their self esteem and dignity [even tho they have no clue what those things are, here or there]. All we have to do is redistribute the wealth and raise the taxes of the rich and of businesses. So what if they are not Americans, they are passengers on Spaceship Earth same as Americans. If fact why don't we all become perfect liberals and pay, feed, cloth, and house all the peoples of the Earth. Just raise taxes on the rich and/or increase the National Debt. Its not important anyhow!

[cobra de capell]

Keep it pithy, exc - pithy.

Also, loading up such a huge volume of flapdoodle and codswallop within so few paragraphs prompts readers (and moderators) to question your entire thought pattern.

One thing is for sure, although I'm not liking having Obama and the team that he's selected making, or not making, this decision - I do thank God that you are not one of them.

In addition, I'd like to acknowledge that I feel the moderators pain, having to go through your posts - dozens of times each and every day.

[Excaliber]

CDC, if you don't have a THOUGHT or SUGGESTION to add to a thread go stick your head back in the toilet.

Your welcome to post your views on the subject, your NOT welcome to go around posting BS just to take up peoples time.

MODS TAKE NOTE!

As your post has nothing to do with the subject matter, please delete it.

[Jamo]

Both of you...cool it now.

[Excaliber]

SPO1715 you mentioned listening to the Generals/troops of the ground. The question would then be, what are they asking for? Well, more troops we know. To do WHAT with them?

[BeanCounter]

Buck Private Ernie,

I wouldn't serve a day with you. You wouldn't make it back from your first patrol and you'd jeopardize every man on the team while you were still alive. Knowing that, and the fact that you said Biden was a pretty intelligent guy, tells us worlds of what level you think at. You think we've won over the people in Pakistan. Their security force is part of the problem we're having as well as the money they funnel, and safety they provide the Taliban. The Afghan people aren't siding with the Taliban, the Taliban has them scared ****less with threats of abuse and murder. And once again they know that people like you will give up their freedom and safety on a whim forcing the military to pull out and instead of killing their enemy and giving them safety we instead work on their hearts and minds. Their hearts and minds will be ours when we annihilate their enemy.

[Excaliber]

So your suggestion is to do what, in order to annihilate them, buck naked Mike? How do you propose we carry this plan? Bunker busters? Surge? Small nukes? Level the towns and villages?

Taliban has them scared ****less with threats of abuse and murder.

Now were getting to the root of the problem!

[Fordzilla]

Bernie, Just curious why you say "ex-sheepdog" in your signature. I've never met an ex-sheepdog, sheepdogs are always sheepdogs.

(I'm a Sheepdog)

[Buzz]

Pakistan is a nation rife with diverging beliefs and divided loyalties. Considering the taliban the enemy of the Pakistani people is a blanket ARSEumption I would advise against taking for granted. It would behoove one to keep one's eyes wide open when collaborating with Pakistan in an effort to rout Bin Laden and the taliban within their borders. A second set of eyes in the back of one's head would also be a valuable ASSet.

[Excaliber]

Well thats one plan Dan, welfare for them, not sure it's a good one, but at least it's a plan. As painful as it may be, we might have to consider leaving the fields alone, in the near term and focusing our energy elsewhere? Infrastructure, roads, housing, employment alternatives, schools? Or even in the NEAR term, a surge first, other things second.

Indeed Buzz, while we have made SOME progress with Pakistan we are far from the goal. What is encouraging is seeing news reports of individuals within townships taking up arms and fighting the Taliban on a local level. They are tired of the murders and intimidation by that group. As the Afghans USED TO BE! Gotta ask yourself, what happened to change that, on either side of the border. What ever it is, we need more of it!

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well thats one plan Dan, welfare for them, not sure it's a good one, but at least it's a plan. As painful as it may be, we might have to consider leaving the fields alone, in the near term and focusing our energy elsewhere? Infrastructure, roads, housing, employment alternatives, schools? Or even in the NEAR term, a surge first, other things second.

Indeed Buzz, while we have made SOME progress with Pakistan we are far from the goal. What is encouraging is seeing news reports of individuals within townships taking up arms and fighting the Taliban on a local level. They are tired of the murders and intimidation by that group. As the Afghans USED TO BE! Gotta ask yourself, what happened to change that, on either side of the border. What ever it is, we need more of it!

Well that ONE plan seems to be the liberals ONLY plan. Take from the rich and give to the undeserving, ala Robin Hood [the famous mythical CRIMINAL and KILLER!]

[Excaliber]

Dan, do you know what General McCrystal's plan is?

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Dan, do you know what General McCrystal's plan is?

Better than you do!

[Excaliber]

Here's a recap:

Biden, more drone attacks.
392cobra, might take more than two nukes.
tcrist, forget the Afghans, kill the Taliban.
Fordzilla, seconds the motion.
Dan40, Surge, with a possible welfare plan?
SPF2245, Hit the training camps (Drone missiles?), with a limited ground force.
BeanCounter, Let them drink Scotch until we figure out what the mission is?
CDC, get in or get out.

SPO1715, Whatever the General in charge wants to do. Leaning toward:
Kill 'em all, sort 'em out later?
Fordzilla seconds the motion.

Buzz, determine who the real enemy is
(not the replica enemy), trust no one.

...and debeat goes on...

[Excaliber]

I would be interested to hear more about your interpretation of McCrystals plan, he's quite a guy.

[Dan40]

Typical liberal, wants our Army's plans posted on the Internet. Brilliant!

If I told you his plans, I'd have to kill you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Mmm, Mmm, Mmm!