RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,150317_2,00.html

The elephant in the room, of course, is the possibility that the other NATO countries in Afghanistan feel abandoned by the US who defied the UN & NATO to focus on Iraq taking 130,000 troops out of Afghanistan, thereby leaving the other countries to finish a just war the US was intrumental in starting but, by action, was not committed to finishing in the foreseable future. In the paranoia of the moment we were lead into a classic folly of the megalomaniac... initiating war on two fronts. By way of promise and action, we owed the UN, NATO and the people of Afghaninstan a stablized country the moment we toppled the Taliban. That debt remains. Obviously, that debt was passed on to 110th Congress and all Congresses following, and to the next President, be he/she Hillary or Matt or Pogo.

Setbacks in Afghanistan? What setbacks in Afghanistan? There haven't been any setbacks in Afghanistan, unless you're a Taliban - at least that's what NATO's been saying.

NATO's been 'knockin em dead' since 'Bomber' McNeil took over as NATO CO. Applied airpower has made nowhere in southern Afghanistan safe for the insurgent.

Unfortunately his philosophy isn't shared with the 'milquetoast' Brits who are afraid he's bombing literally, as well as metaphorically, in the battle for hearts and minds. While Americans like to think that every bomb is a good bomb, and that they don't target kids - the Afghan opinion is that 'death from above' has visited all too many Afghan homes.

It ain't any 'romp to victry', and the rest of NATO seem like they'd like to be called out of the room for a phone call, or something.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: popsiq,

Why didn't Cheney allow our forces to quash Al Qaeda when we had them tied down in Tora Bora? Because he needed Al Qaeda to stay on the threat radar so he could push into Iraq...if we threatened and bullied Pakistan after 911 into eliminating their support of the Taliban, we told the Pakis we'd nuke them, why aren't we doing that now with Al Qaeda's sanctuary in Wazaristan? The same reason. If we destroy Al Qaeda's headquarters and training sites in Wazaristan then where is the arugment for us to stay in Iraq? The Wazaristan sanctuary is also used by the Taliban to train, resupply and launch into Afghanistan---we aren't serious about Afghanistan we dished it off to NATO so we wouldn't be fully obligated to source that war and the flaccid results are most telling. As i've stated before we are not truly serious about Al Qaeda, they aren't even a major source of attacks in Iraq.

rockriver,

Once again I find someone who watches a few movies, catches the news, and then thinks he's a freakn war expert. I call people like you "couch generals".

"Because he needed Al Qaeda to stay on the threat radar so he could push into Iraq"

That's funny, cause we were actually pushing the OTHER FREAKN DIRECTION YOU F* IDIOT.

Oh and as for "As i've stated before we are not truly serious about Al Qaeda, they aren't even a major source of attacks in Iraq"

That's actually laughable. That's proof that you really, I mean really, don't know anything about what's truly going on in Iraq.


So for now on, I don't want to hear your opinion. That is unless you put a statement below each opinion to the effect that you really don't know what you're talking about.

God Bless America.

Sorry for the hostility of my last post. But it just makes me so mad when people spout crap like that. It's absolute nonsense and anyone who has truly seen what's going on in this theater of operations knows what I'm talking about. Whether they admit it or not, they know.

Just because I'm I'm sorry for the hostility doesn't mean that I changed my mind. You're still wrong.

For starters, you might want to pull out a dictionary. I don't apologize for knowing more than you...get over it, change your diaper and press on. I gave orders and you take orders its life deal with it. If you can't think beyond the range of your weapon that is your problem, for your ignorance is on full display. What? Are you going to now claim that you can think cogently at the tactical and strategic level? Emphasis on the cogently.

Here is a simple clue and don't worry we aren't talking higher math here. If Iraq is a country chiefly made up of Shiites in the 60 percentile the remainder are mostly Sunnis and Kurds, therefore Al Qaeda, is statistically a small element---except on Fox TV and the White House. Are you really that clueless? Are you going to claim that you have the intellect to parse out the Shiite, Sunni, Al Qaeda attacks? If you can you should be on staff, not on point. FYI, Klinger, I was last there in May ferrying troops and what they said from Regimental commander on down is nowhere near what you and those idiot Bushies are spouting.

What's next you're going to say they built a new potemkin school/hospital/market? They've got electricity all the time? That change is around the corner? That there was a pre-invasion connection with Al Qaeda and Saddam? My personal favorite "Clear & Hold" is more like, Clear, IA holds, we re-clear, they re-hold, we re-clear, ad nauseam.

Hello, McFly, it's the same fresh s**t sandwich offered up by the Bushies----all they've changed is the bread, and you're going to keep taking huge bites of that s**t sandwich and try to tell me otherwise? BTW do you take chips with your sandwich?

For those enlightened professionals I've cut and pasted an excerpt of this article by a former Stars & Stripes reporter.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

"When turning to the question of manpower, military officials told the New York Times in August that of the roughly 24,500 prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq (nearly all of whom are Sunni), just 1,800—about 7 percent—claim allegiance to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, the composition of inmates does not support the assumption that large numbers of foreign terrorists, long believed to be the leaders and most hard-core elements of AQI, are operating inside Iraq. In August, American forces held in custody 280 foreign nationals—slightly more than 1 percent of total inmates.

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which arguably has the best track record for producing accurate intelligence assessments, last year estimated that AQI's membership was in a range of "more than 1,000." When compared with the military's estimate for the total size of the insurgency—between 20,000 and 30,000 full-time fighters—this figure puts AQI forces at around 5 percent. When compared with Iraqi intelligence's much larger estimates of the insurgency—200,000 fighters—INR's estimate would put AQI forces at less than 1 percent. This year, the State Department dropped even its base-level estimate, because, as an official explained, "the information is too disparate to come up with a consensus number."

How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

First off who said Bin Hidin was in Tora Bora. No intel said that at all. Second of all NATO said the can handle that mission, it could be better but going fine. All I heard the run up to the war in Iraq was that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11. Well Iraq has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Get your fact straight.

The point is that I see the orders, as well as the real picture. And I literally watch it unfold. The simple FACT is that the majority of attacks carried out in Iraq are from Al Qaeda, or made possible by Al Queda via direct support.

Speaking of pulling out a dictionary, you might want to look up Al Qaeda. Oh, look-e there! Al Queda is actually a terrorist group made up of Islamic extremists from-that's right- sunni and shia's. Hmmm, that pretty much takes the basis from your argument there.

I understand the whole I gave orders and you take them routine. It's not uncommon to hear that rhetoric, I've been in for a little while. There are officers in the military that value the contributions, experience, and cognitive abilities of NCO's. I can see that you aren't on of those. (Although most of our nation's most celebrated senior commanders were)
It's unfortunate to hear that sort of thing as a basis for an argument, or actually to hear it at all.

I understand that you've been to Iraq before-so noted. Judging from your Air Force experience, you probably spent a maximum of 6 months in Iraq, although probably 4. Also, probably, not in a role that had absolutely nothing to do with strategy. Of course, I can't know that and I'm not going to try to devalue anyone's experience - as you previously did to mine. (Which actually includes 25 months on ground in Iraq, in a position to directly see what is going on at a provincial and national level.)

And for the record, I've been on point and on staff.

That aside, it doesn't take a degree and/or commission to see the reports when they come in. Get you security clearance back and check it out yourself.

Cheers from the NCO Corps,

MCFLY

Sgt Marty McFly states:

"Speaking of pulling out a dictionary, you might want to look up Al Qaeda. Oh, look-e there! Al Queda is actually a terrorist group made up of Islamic extremists from-that's right- sunni and shia's. Hmmm, that pretty much takes the basis from your argument there"

First, stay on point, (no, not patrol point). Did you not read the excerpt? You blow past my substantive cite about AQI and fail to acknowledge the substantive expertise of others?Instead you expect us to believe your "reading" of reports negates more impressive viewpoints? In your case while you can read, your inability to analyze what you've read is most telling. This is precisely why you know enough to be dangerous to yourself and sadly, others.

If you are telling me you are MI let's be frank, historically the intel shop doesn't have a great batting average on getting it right. That is not a slam, but when you are a round eye, westerner non-speaker, who can round up anybody off the street, your captive is going to say whatever they think will save their butt. Wouldn't your own statement I posted above give you any pause as to the quality of what you've read?

AQI is a Sunni movement do ya think the Shiites are going to join AQI which targets Shiites and their mosques? AQI's former leader was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a Jordanian-- Sunni. Guess what Osama is? Say it...---ding! A Sunni. Get it? Sadr--not AQI is a---ding! A Shiite.

Also lets clear something up, of course you are on staff: getting coffee, surfing the net while your copies of the briefing are printing, etc. but please don't confuse the act of taking out the trashcan or associated s**t details with true staff work. Are you telling me that you are shoulder to shoulder with 05s & 06s while they attentively listen to your critical insight? Exactly what I thought. Why is that? Because your statements reveal your inability to conduct effective and critical analysis. I was Army initially: enlisted, NCO, and later OCS grad, so either your wear the rank or bear it; in your case, clearly you wear it. So please don't get your panties in a wad over this, I'm not anti-enlisted, in your case it's your fate deal with it, and expand your viewpoint. For I met, worked and learned from some of the finest enlisted and NCOs, and clearly you do not possess their caliber.

Finally, I don't give a rat's a** even if you were in Baghdad's Al-Zawra'a Park running an OP 6 months PRIOR to the invasion it won't change the fact that despite your self-proclaimed "staff" work you can't tell the difference between AQI, Shiites, and non-AQI Sunnis.

Well there's really no sense in dragging this out. The difference here is that I see reality and you see what you want to. Your arguments are based on assumptions which, by when compared to facts, are baseless.

I don't need to defend myself here. My EXPERIENCE speaks for it's self. I lead, and have led, real soldiers in actual combat engagements with enemy forces of the United States. My leadership has saved lives and I don't appreciate "This is precisely why you know enough to be dangerous to yourself and sadly, others."

Regardless of operational experience, get your freakn facts straight. Al Qaeda is not associated with Sunni or Shiia in particular.

I do wear my rank, which I earned, every step of the way. Thank you for doing my ARMY a favor and getting the f* out.

Enjoy your retirement, we're much better w/out you and others like you.

The most glaring difference here is that there are two sides: Those who are for the team, and everyone else. Real Americans don't loose, they support the team until the game is won. I hope you enjoy your life with the other team.

God Bless You and God Bless America,

quote:

Because your statements reveal your inability to conduct effective and critical analysis

By the way, just because I don't jump on the anti-war bandwagon doesn't mean I'm unable to conduct critical analysis. I have spoken out previously against things that I dissagree with.

What recent setbacks in Afghanistan?

We are kicking the Talibans collective arse out in Afghanistan.


Cry Haddock! Let slip the Cod of War! Captain Birdseye.

Again you fail to address on point substantive insight that directly contradicts your alleged
reading of slanted reports---you can't even understand the basis of the threat, but perhaps in your block, and within the range of your weapon that may be true, but in the scheme of things, as in an expansive view, highly doubtful. I've got the war t-shirt too so first get over yourself and then engage your brain.

Of course as you state, you "wear" your rank-- unlike all others who "bear" their rank, your inability to make THAT small yet critical connection fully explains everything.

Shower, clean sheets, and working in an air-conditioned environment---Hey, McFly what's not to like? I don't apologize for your inability to fly or attend OCS--leading troops,(what a squad) without fully understanding the threat makes you a threat. I didn't originate that maxim I think it's been around a lot longer than the concept of say, modern warfare---of course you wouldn't know that--it wasn't in your staff report. For you that would be a clue to work on becoming tactically and technically proficient instead of squeezing off your solipsistic "My Army"---who gives a rats a**, it's everyone's Army, Klinger.

Understandably you would seize the comic book viewpoint so prevalent amongst those that ask so little of themselves or their leaders, with your broke dick "one team" ideals; fortunately the people you defend have the right to question the idiocy of a policy that lacks substance, coherency, and chiefly sound military principles---that definitley is not in a staff report.

quote:

Originally posted by rockriver04:
Of course as you state, you "wear" your rank-- unlike all others who "bear" their rank, your inability to make THAT small yet critical connection fully explains everything.

Bear the rank? So the Air Force hasn't freed the serfs yet? Rank isn't earned in the Air Force.....it's inherited from generation to generation?

Seriously, there LTC, your posts are so full of vitriol and personal attacks I can't tell what point your trying to make other then you think your part of a authorized upper social caste of some sort.

Aside from whatever political point you were trying to make you really need to take a hard look at your posts and how your representing yourself and your branch of service here to the readership.

I'll be happy to compare my technical and tactical competency with that of your own-ANYTIME/ANYWHERE!

You can throw a bunch of big words in a sentence to make yourself sound inteligent, but in actuality you sound like a babbling idiot.

This reminds me of elementary school. Let me counter your personal insults with: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!!! HA HA ERRR

No, on second thought, let me break down your argument:

Wait a minute, we were talking about your assertion that AQI is a Sunni movement, but your last post failed to provide any facts. Let's do this, get yourself a security cleaarance and look up EVERY SINGLE ONE of the AQI we've killed or captured and let's see what affiliation they have. Hmmm, you might be surprised at what you see.

Let me now address: "I've got the war t-shirt too so first get over yourself and then engage your brain."

There are thousands of Soldiers and Marines who have been to war. Yes they all made a sacrifice, but the simple fact is some people have it a little different than others. Why don't you tell everyone here what your "WAR EXPERIENCE" is, then I'll tell mine (which is well documented) and we'll see who's embarrassed. The Air Force provides a vital contribution to the war effort, but don't for one second think that a 4 month deployment with an air conditioned trailor compares to 15 months of ground pounding, sleeping in safe houses or wherever you happen to end up between missions, and other things I can't discuss. GTF outa here.

I'd like to know one thing that you can do better than me. I'd like to know why you think you are so intelligent and I'm a dumbass. Oh, I forgot, you have a commission. Let me tell you something FCKSTICK, you wouldn't know leadership if it hit you in the face.

I'm finished debating my personal experience with a wanabe retired Chairforce LTC. Get a life. Like I said, we're better without you.

F-OFF.

Aside from all of that garbage, I think the author was right. NATO is ineffective because of it's inability to move quickly. Everyhting has to be approved through multiple channels and they end up looking like an 18th century army on the battlefield. Sitting ducks! I had hoped they learned their lesson after Bosnia, apparently not. They better learn quick or it's going to get messy.

quote:

Originally posted by bwf27:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,150317_2,00.html

The elephant in the room, of course, is the possibility that the other NATO countries in Afghanistan feel abandoned by the US who defied the UN & NATO to focus on Iraq taking 130,000 troops out of Afghanistan, thereby leaving the other countries to finish a just war the US was intrumental in starting but, by action, was not committed to finishing in the foreseable future. In the paranoia of the moment we were lead into a classic folly of the megalomaniac... initiating war on two fronts. By way of promise and action, we owed the UN, NATO and the people of Afghaninstan a stablized country the moment we toppled the Taliban. That debt remains. Obviously, that debt was passed on to 110th Congress and all Congresses following, and to the next President, be he/she Hillary or Matt or Pogo.

Just to let you know, We (the USA) never ever had 100,000 plus troops in Afghanistan. We don't owe the UN anything, nor due we owe NATO, because if it wasn't for US commitment and money, both organizations would have collapsed in on themselves a long time ago.

You arrogant so-called NCO. First, talking even alluding to classified is totally forbidden, but of course you wouldn't grasp that because you're the quintessential self-absorbed junior NCO who equates emptying out trash cans with actual staff work. What's next your going to claim you are planning and leading company and battalion sized elements--right. If you are an NCO you are the most junior at best with obviously no NCO school under your belt and you would sh*t your pants if you had to take over a platoon, so don't puff up your little world on my account.

Naturally most professionals know the quality and accuracy of classified data--then again your inability to square reality with erroneous reports plus even discuss them in any form illuminates your poor critical thinking skills, and more importantly your poor judgement about handling classified data. Besides you can't even make the connection with pre-invasion faulty WMD intel with the fact you are on patrol in Baghdad? You're going to keep faith twice? Truly impressive. No lessons to be learned here eh, McFly?

As to the Air Force, Balad, Ali Air Base, Kuwait City, etc, what's next my flight schedules? Besides don't belittle the Air Force contribution we lost two F-16 drivers this year one on departure and the other pressing the attack to support GROUND troops you ignorant, Schmedlap; as you belittle the Air Force for short term deployments tell that to the families and squadron buds who lost those pilots--as for the lifestyle take it up with your recruiter--remember I left the Army for the Air Force. Don't whine just because you couldn't score high enough on the ASVAB--you're the dips**t without any options short of staring down your weapon for plus 12 month deployments.

Finally, your arrogance reminds me of what we said in the squadron about people like you--it's self-correcting, hopefully you won't screw things up for someone else when that lesson comes home.

quote:

The elephant in the room, of course, is the possibility that the other NATO countries in Afghanistan feel abandoned by the US who defied the UN & NATO to focus on Iraq taking 130,000 troops out of Afghanistan, thereby leaving the other countries to finish a just war the US was intrumental in starting but, by action, was not committed to finishing in the foreseable future. In the paranoia of the moment we were lead into a classic folly of the megalomaniac... initiating war on two fronts. By way of promise and action, we owed the UN, NATO and the people of Afghaninstan a stablized country the moment we toppled the Taliban. That debt remains. Obviously, that debt was passed on to 110th Congress and all Congresses following, and to the next President, be he/she Hillary or Matt or Pogo.

We didn't take 130,000 troops out of Afghanistan, because there were never 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. US troop levels have reached the highest levels since the start this year about 26 to 27K.

Not saying I agree with them, but the Brits seems to be developing a pretty severe case of "buyer's remorse" in Iraq and Afghanistan:

quote:

War on terror has been a 'disaster'

The so-called War on Terror has been a "disaster" and British military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan must be fundamentally changed if al Qaida is to be defeated, a new report states.

The report, by the Oxford Research Group think tank, calls for major changes in foreign policy and warns of the dangers of military action against Iran.

... Report author Paul Rogers said: "Every aspect of the War on Terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through to mass detentions without trial. In short, it has been a disaster.

Western countries simply have to face up to the dangerous mistakes of the past six years and recognize the need for new policies."

And he warned: "Going to war with Iran will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region.

Like it or not, this story is getting a lot of play around the world. It creates an impression, that "soft power" strategies like China's are in the ascendancy, while "hard power" strategies like that of Britain and America are bogging down.

The administration IMHO cannot afford to let stories like this go unanswered. In particular, Gen. Petraeus cannot do "all the talking."