RE: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,182882,00.html

We need to be strong as a country. We have a fight ahead of us that demands our attention and swift actions for the safety of all. Our finest men and women are fighting today so that we as a country may live free. The insidious nature of terrorism must be stopped.

Um, we're not going to defeat terrorism solely with our military.

Instead of sending more Soldiers, we need more:

-Agricultural specialists
-Governance specialists
-Veterinarians
-Afghans that know the tribes

Also, we need to figure out how the hell a country that only pulls in $800 million a year can afford $2 billion a year to run its military.

What a mess Afghanistan is.

Don't you think that has are been tried? They beheaded most of those "Others" who went over there not with guns but to teach and help.

They got beheaded for their efforts...Afgh is a useless country. it has nothing, no OIL, GAS, Gold etc, except to grow herion..thats it...

Thats why its a "Perfect" country to train terrorist in, its a nothing waste land..with a small population and run by war lords...

If it hadn't been for OBL we wouldn't even be there and if it hadn't been for Clinton and his admin falling down on the job of Intell and failing to bring down OBL when he could have, there would not have been a 9/11 or Iraq!! For it was Clinton, Kerry and his admin that said many times, IRAQ has WAM's many times!!! And passed that bad info onto Bush without a whisper of the truth except for one person who advise Bush it was not true, BUT..when you have 250 saying its true and one who says NO, who you going to believe? The 250...that is until they change their story AFTER BUSH goes into IRAQ!!!
And thats why Bush WAS NEVER IMPEACH or will EVER be charge for ANYTHING...The Democrats screwed that one up good..and they can never take it back..oh Clinton's man Berger tried, but he didn't steal enough!!!!!!!!!

Some people would like to beleive that victory in Afghanistan can only result from attacking bad guys in Pakistan.

Wasn't this exactly what people were suggesting to do to win in Vietnam? (Attacking Laos and Cambodia)

quote:

Originally posted by mrmixitup:
Um, we're not going to defeat terrorism solely with our military.

Instead of sending more Soldiers, we need more:

-Agricultural specialists
-Governance specialists
-Veterinarians
-Afghans that know the tribes

Also, we need to figure out how the hell a country that only pulls in $800 million a year can afford $2 billion a year to run its military.

What a mess Afghanistan is.

By far the most important aspect is that everybody involved should co-ordinate their efforts. As it is, you get situations where British Army Sappers aren't even allowed to spend five minutes hooking up the fridges in a hospital because the aid folks say it's their job. Only they've no people to do it.

It's a totally ridiculous state of affairs, with all these useless throbbers protecting their little kingdoms against all-comers.

Until there's a radical change in that, I see no way any real progress can be made.

MsG

quote:

Originally posted by mrmixitup:
Um, we're not going to defeat terrorism solely with our military.

Instead of sending more Soldiers, we need more:

-Agricultural specialists
-Governance specialists
-Veterinarians
-Afghans that know the tribes

Also, we need to figure out how the hell a country that only pulls in $800 million a year can afford $2 billion a year to run its military.

What a mess Afghanistan is.

Mix,

Concur with your comments with one exception. My understanding is that the 17,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan are units that would have been deployed to Iraq. The theater commander (Afghanistan) has been adamant in his requests for the additional troops to bolster security and to ensure the safety of troops already there.

Apparently the Joint Chiefs and the DOD agree with him. Hopefully he is not another Westmoreland who wanted to solve all problems in Vietnam with false optimism and more and more boots on the ground.

Jack

How's this for a New Unit to face the Evolving Fight in Afghanistan: A company of 50+ yr olds with prior combat experience, that have already graduated from Army basic training and any other necessary training. Might be just what is needed to bust through age discrimination in the military.

If you can prove you what it takes, then you should be given the opportunity to spread your knowledge in the field.

Buying an alliance provided a front for regime change, but failed to secure the country. Strategic and tactical airwar hasn't slowed things down. Building hardtop highways and rigorous patrolling hasn't stopped the Taliban. Building a series of 'Ft. Apaches' and patrol bases just seems to give the Taliban better targets and greater freedom to operate elsewhere. Increasing military presence often reduces security, especially for civilians.

The investment of money, without the application of armed force, might just 'spoil' the Afghans with newfound wealth. Wealthy people don't kill each other.