Afghanistan, more troops?

[Excaliber]

...kill the Taliban, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Now THERE's a solid game plan. Got any ideas on how to get-r-done? Al Queda, maybe we can take them out, maybe. Taliban? It's going to take more than guns and bombs on our part. They will just keep coming back unless we get a "grass roots" movement to stop them at a local level. I'd even settle for an "astro turf" movement. Let's pay those tribes and fiefdom's a few bucks.

Man was I pissed when I read about those Pakistani's syphoning off the money we gave them for their own personal agenda. Seem's like you can't trust anybody over there, what a revelation!

FUBAR? Yeah, yeah, that about sum's it up Jamo...

[dcdoug]

Not saying there are any easy answers, just saying this is the important war to fight, not the Iraq war that we were conned into and will spend $1+ trillian fighting. That was my real point.

There was an earlier reference to Vietnam. Is this different than Vietnam? The Vietnamese didn't bomb downtown NYC and we need to do what it takes to kill those who did.

[BeanCounter]

Sheepdogs are fine against wolves, but not all enemies are wolves.

Absolutely the most profound thing you have ever said.

I wonder how you'd look with a little sprig of mint behind your ear.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

Absolutely the most profound thing you have ever said.

I wonder how you'd look with a little sprig of mint behind your ear.

Yup - it's tough to teach an old dog new tricks.

[Excaliber]

Seems to me, specifically what he was chastised for were his comments about the possible collapse of the Afghan government to the Taliban. That information and his opinion's are available on-line. So it's to late to put the Genie back in the bottle wether he speaks publicily or not.

More troubling to me, than his being chastied, is wether his opinion is accurate or not. IS the Taliban take over of the Government imminent in the near future, or not? The Administration's position seems to be it is not imminent. That sounds suspciously like politic's at best, don't scare the people, let's talk about it quietly behind closed doors sort of thing.

The discord may arise from a time table and man power dispute, which could mean both parties are "correct" in their statements. How long do we have before this take over is likley? What can we do to stop it? IS it really imminent if we continue on our current path? Will it happen soon if we don't send another 40,000 troops NOW?

McCrystal sure sounds like a very competent guy with a well thought out plan of attack. If he says he needs 40,000 troops NOW, I'm inclined to believe him. But still, a thorough review is warranted. Just don't take to long with it, if the General is right, were all ready out of time!

[Excaliber]

Rummy might have encouraged it, but I'm left with the impression he did what HE wanted to do in the end, regardless of their input, or anybody else for that matter.

[Bartruff1]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Rummy might have encouraged it, but I'm left with the impression he did what HE wanted to do in the end, regardless of their input, or anybody else for that matter.

Ex...this ground has been plowed and plowed... however..I am under the impression that the reason we got into so much trouble was that Cheney and Rumsfelt didn't listen and in fact (with the other Neo Cons) actually bullied the career people in the DOD, CIA etc...to support their agenda..... the Administration has the power and the right and the responsibility to make the decisions, but they (IMHO) take a terrible chance when they decide to discount the career people and go another direction. History, with all it's imperfections will give us some clues...It was painful to me to watch Meyers....I suspect there are some people in here with stars and from my lofty position as a peace time 1st Lieutenant I am in awe of the skills of those that survive that marathon thru a mindfield and reach the medal stand....they are truly remarkable people...

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Bartruff1

... mindfield ...

Heh, heh... full of all that unexploded ordnance.

Ernie,
Have you read the report? What about it do you disagree with?

Steve

[Excaliber]

I'd like to see McChrystal make his case before Congress and thus the American people. I doubt that will happen. I think it's important if for no other reason than for the "transparency" Obama so often talks about. I'm NOT saying I totally support his view point, but the man should be given that respect.

[Excaliber]

It's not a matter of disagreeing with his report, which I have read. It is one man's opinion, a very worthy man with boots on the ground! His counsel should be seriously considered, but the review process for such input is there for a good reason, a balance of power. View points from several sides of the issue are warranted. No matter WHAT the final decision is there is no gaurentee anybody will make the best one. Even McChrystal acknowledges that. Such is the nature of war,,,

Here is a link to the actual report, which I think is more valuable than seeing it with pundit comments or political spin. It's just his straight forward assessment.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...ted_092109.pdf

Good or bad, like it or not, a Commander in Chief MUST take into account the publics support or non-support of a war effort. Not so much for political gain or loss but because he should listen to the will of the misguided, often swayed by political party affiliation, right wing and left wing nut peoples. As if to suggest "WE" actually have a freakin' clue as to what's really going on, I assure you, we don't! But we have excellent "gut feelings", perfect hindsight and plenty news reports upon which to base our opinions, that will have to be enough. Unless, some of us have recently attended a morning National briefing on what's going on.

[Excaliber]

I've all ready made a case for why the public opinion may be flawed or without sufficient data, BUT, it's a system that seems to work pretty well for the most part (go figure).

In view of that I was not real happy with the view of the previous administration that the public didn't know what was best for them!

OK, maybe, but man that's a mean road to start to go down, red flags popping up all over the place.

[Chaplain]

The War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan are two different things while the first is global, the second is regional. We have to destroy Al Qaeda we have to defeat the Taliban. The problem is the Taliban are intermixed with the population and only come out to plant an IED or launch an attack when they think the outcome will make a political statement without any regard as to how many casualties they receive. It is a classical gorilla type insurgency. If we want to win, we're going to have to after them and sorry to say the people that are protecting them. Lastly, when you start to hear Kabul compared to Saigon (hasn't happened yet), meaning the fight has collapsed to protecting the capital it's over.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Chaplain

The War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan are two different things while the first is global, the second is regional. We have to destroy Al Qaeda we have to defeat the Taliban. The problem is the Taliban are intermixed with the population and only come out to plant an IED or launch an attack when they think the outcome will make a political statement without any regard as to how many casualties they receive. It is a classical gorilla type insurgency. If we want to win, we're going to have to after them and sorry to say the people that are protecting them. Lastly, when you start to hear Kabul compared to Saigon (hasn't happened yet), meaning the fight has collapsed to protecting the capital it's over.

Chaplain,
Go read MacChrystals report.

[Sharroll Celby]

First of all, I agree that Obama shoould not be President. I think his whole outlook stinks, as well as his policies, and I am glad I didnt vote for him.
Second, we are fighting TWO guerrilla-type wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are fighting with WWII-era methods. Christ, the enemies dont even wear uniforms, and hide behind the skirts and robes of the civilians.
With that said, I think we need to change our tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we should withdraw our troops to defensible positions, and get better INTEL on WHICH INDIVIDUALS we are actually fighting.
Third, we took Saddam Hussein, which was good and bad. Good, because he was a thug for many reasons already mentioned by others. BAD, because he was a thorn in Iran's side, and with Iraq out of the picture, we now have to deal with Iran.
We NEED to get better INTEL, and fight the guerrillas with our own guerrilla-type warfare. Our present methods of driving a military convoy down a road and having it blown up by IEDs just doesnt cut it. Never did and never will.

[Excaliber]

I like Obama myself and think he's doing a fine job! Doesn't mean I agree with all his policy decisions, that never happens with ANY president EVER for all the people all the time.

It has been suggested he is not getting the best recommendations from the best people, I disagree. For the most part, their just people some folks don't like. And then we wonder is he LISTENING to these recommendations? I have seen nothing to suggest his counsel on the war effort is anything less than the best the country has to offer! If he doesn't make a decision in 48 hours he is considered "wavering" and "undecisive". Gimme a break! The voices on what to do are many, the suggestions quite varied. PLEASE, take your time all ready! I like his considered and thoughtful approach when it comes to making an important decision like: Send in 40,000 troops or not? Send in more? Less? Let's not jump to any conclusions here I say! BUT people are dieing while he waits!!! Yeah, thats a drag, MORE people will die if he jumps to the wrong conclusion, it is "war" after all.

The "faults" of Obama, so often cited on THIS web site, ad nauseum, are largely without merit. In short, 90% of what you see here is BS spin, period! Those that dare to offer ANY kind of support for this or that Obama decision or policy are quickly ridiculed and labeled "Liberal". You could say that stems from a "herd mentality", maybe a circle jerk, Kool Aid drinkers, what ever the current negative label is the "herd" is using today to describe these so called "liberals". MABYE, they are the REAL independants amongst a bunch of replica independants!

I must say though:
THIS thread has been an exception. There has been some good dialog and not a lot of inflaming posts (until this one).

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I like Obama myself and think he's doing a fine job!
I have seen nothing to suggest his counsel on the war effort is anything less than the best the country has to offer! I like his considered and thoughtful approach when it comes to making an important decision like: Send in 40,000 troops or not? Send in more? Less? Let's not jump to any conclusions here I say! BUT people are dieing while he waits!!! Yeah, thats a drag, MORE people will die if he jumps to the wrong conclusion, it is "war" after all.

You could say that stems from a "herd mentality", maybe a circle jerk, Kool Aid drinkers, what ever the current negative label is the "herd" is using today to describe these so called "liberals".

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

That is so cool! I never knew a sarlacc ended up here!

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I like Obama myself and think he's doing a fine job! Doesn't mean I agree with all his policy decisions, that never happens with ANY president EVER for all the people all the time.

It has been suggested he is not getting the best recommendations from the best people, I disagree. For the most part, their just people some folks don't like. And then we wonder is he LISTENING to these recommendations? I have seen nothing to suggest his counsel on the war effort is anything less than the best the country has to offer! If he doesn't make a decision in 48 hours he is considered "wavering" and "undecisive". Gimme a break! The voices on what to do are many, the suggestions quite varied. PLEASE, take your time all ready! I like his considered and thoughtful approach when it comes to making an important decision like: Send in 40,000 troops or not? Send in more? Less? Let's not jump to any conclusions here I say! BUT people are dieing while he waits!!! Yeah, thats a drag, MORE people will die if he jumps to the wrong conclusion, it is "war" after all.

The "faults" of Obama, so often cited on THIS web site, ad nauseum, are largely without merit. In short, 90% of what you see here is BS spin, period! Those that dare to offer ANY kind of support for this or that Obama decision or policy are quickly ridiculed and labeled "Liberal". You could say that stems from a "herd mentality", maybe a circle jerk, Kool Aid drinkers, what ever the current negative label is the "herd" is using today to describe these so called "liberals". MABYE, they are the REAL independants amongst a bunch of replica independants!

I must say though:
THIS thread has been an exception. There has been some good dialog and not a lot of inflaming posts (until this one).

You have a bright future as a wacky, out-of-touch with reality, stand up comedian.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

You have a bright future as a wacky, out-of-touch with reality, stand up comedian.

Hey, this thread is doing fine without personal attacks.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Dan40

You have a bright future as a wacky, out-of-touch with reality, stand up comedian.

Uh, Dan.... try and have a civil dialog without insults....it just flows so much better.

thanks.