Afghanistan, more troops? - Page 6

392cobra · #1 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 02:41 PM

Perhaps the Taliban,who aren't our enemies anymore,will teach us how to keep our women in the kitchen and the bedroom once again.

Excaliber · #2 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 02:56 PM

Gross exaggeration of course. The Taliban firmly remains an enemy to be reckoned with.

When the house is burning down, you got to set priorities.

Sharroll Celby · #3 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 03:23 PM

Saddam WAS a LOCAL threat only. We lost over 4500 troops for no real reason, other than to make Iran stronger (with one less enemy on their border.)
Bush apparently didnt learn ANYTHING from fighting in Vietnam, where we were fighting non-uniformed enemies. SAME thing in Iraq. We need better INTEL, go in with drones or small Seal teams, do our damage, and get the phuck out. But NO, dumbass Bush and now dumbass Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand pit of the Middle East.
The USSR, as strong as they were in the 80's, could not win a damn thing in Afghanistan; now here WE go, not able to win a damn thing there 25 years later.

We should just buy their oil, and lob the occasional cruise missile at certain targets.

fsstnotch · #4 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharroll Celby

Saddam WAS a LOCAL threat only. We lost over 4500 troops for no real reason, other than to make Iran stronger (with one less enemy on their border.)
Bush apparently didnt learn ANYTHING from fighting in Vietnam, where we were fighting non-uniformed enemies. SAME thing in Iraq. We need better INTEL, go in with drones or small Seal teams, do our damage, and get the phuck out. But NO, dumbass Bush and now dumbass Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand pit of the Middle East.
The USSR, as strong as they were in the 80's, could not win a damn thing in Afghanistan; now here WE go, not able to win a damn thing there 25 years later.

We should just buy their oil, and lob the occasional cruise missile at certain targets.

Do you seriously think this is something that is/has not already done?

It is/was.... and it's not working effectively. Why you ask? Because everytime there is a civilian casualty, the news is all over us! The only thing that has been effective thus far is like we did last month where we dropped a few thousand Marines off outside of a Taliban stronghold of Helmand and pushed through, eliminating ALOT of the enemy and driving the rest out. Now theres the task of HOLDING that area for a time until the locals feel safe again and begin to trust in what we are doing. This is where it get's dangerous.... Often times we are left with teams of 5-15 soldiers manning areas getting attacked by 50-100 insurgents... are we seeing the problem yet?

Excaliber · #5 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Obama want to put more troops in that quicksand...

He does? Dang, I missed the latest War Room meeting, how many troops is he putting in and when?

BeanCounter · #6 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 04:12 PM

Damn, why can't Celby be president. He'd fix everything.

Fordzilla · #7 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 05:39 PM

http://www.military.com/news/article...ith-obama.html

Excaliber · #8 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 07:12 PM

That was a good read Fordzilla. "MChrystal Light", less filling than 40,000 troops. Actually I understand McC originally wanted 60,000 and was told "wouldn't happen, don't even go there" and paired the number down to 40.

SP01715 · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

That was a good read Fordzilla. "MChrystal Light", less filling than 40,000 troops. Actually I understand McC originally wanted 60,000 and was told "wouldn't happen, don't even go there" and paired the number down to 40.

He actually wanted closer to 150k, but was told not to ask for more than 50k. This was according to an officer that works inside the pentagon as an analyst dealing with troop levels.

Fordzilla · #10 (**permalink**) 10-10-2009, 03:40 AM

Thanks, I thought it was a good read too. This paragraph sums up nicely the current debate:

"The current debate is broadly bookended by two options: "double down" and send tens of thousands more US troops to mount a proper counterinsurgency, committing American resources for at least a decade to essentially build a nation from scratch, or walk back to a more targeted counterterrorism strategy that would conduct intelligence-driven attacks against Al Qaeda with minimal American "footprint." A third option, thought to be the most risky, is a hybrid of the two."

Maricopa · #11 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 01:56 PM

Taliban...will teach us how to keep our goats in the kitchen and the bedroom once again.

Fixed it for ya.

Excaliber · #12 (**permalink**) 10-14-2009, 09:56 AM

McChrystal says,

Quote:

Rampant government corruption might derail the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops were sent to the war,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...crease-afghan/

Even when he requested 40,000 he did make the point there were no gaurentee's. This recent "leak" would seem to confirm that.