Surprised no one has brought this up yet. I have been thinking alot about this lately.

What should we do?

Things seem to be deteriorating over there lately. I feel Prez Obama needs to make a call quickly vs "thinking about it". Based on Candidate Obama's campaign speeches, he spoke like he already had a gameplane to defeat the bad guys and get OBL. I think this is an easy call. I'm of the opinion that we either fully support the General's request over there or pull our troops ASAP. I fear anything halfway is appeasing certain segments of his supporters and will get more of our troops killed. All in or all out!!

Thoughts???

Obama was going to bring the troops home, remember? Nope, he's as complacent (if not more) than the dreaded GWB.

I've read history books, so... you know...

Iraq is and pretty much always has been a civilized nation, even under Sadaam. I mean foks are literate, there is agriculture, trade, respect for civil insitutions. Stuff like that. Iraq is a place where civilized democratic rule is a possiblity.

Not so Afghanistan. Never been civilized, never really has had a central government. Village and regional tribal 'chiefs' and warlords have ruled Afghanistan for.. ever. I say get out now.

quote:

Originally posted by Mazski9:
Obama was going to bring the troops home, remember? Nope, he's as complacent (if not more) than the dreaded GWB.

In the Prez's (Candidate Obama) defense.....I believe he was talking about yanking them out of Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan where the "real war" was located. At least that's what the Lib base was telling him to say. Interestingly thus far....he has done neither.

I'll add another update to my previous view point in my earlier post above.....regardless of what the Prez does in the end....I'd give serious reconsideration to our relationship to the UN. Other than the allies that are supporting the war effort (i.e....us), the UN as a whole is useless. If we do add more troops....what say you UN?

I believe Obama has sent 21,000 additional troops to Astan. However, I also believe the latest request for 40,000 more troops in Astan may be more than even some generals wish to commit. None of us know for sure. I do remember a general named Westmoreland who kept asking for troops, how did that work out?

Are we not removing troops from Iraq? Most of the complainers here say we shouldn't set a withdrawal date but then complain that Obama hasn't set a withdrawal date. Remember how Iraq got broken, it may take a little longer to get out due to that strategy or lack there of.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
I believe Obama has sent 21,000 additional troops to Astan. However, I also believe the latest request for 40,000 more troops in Astan may be more than even some generals wish to commit. None of us know for sure. I do remember a general named Westmoreland who kept asking for troops, how did that work out?

Are we not removing troops from Iraq? Most of the complainers here say we shouldn't set a withdrawal date but then complain that Obama hasn't set a withdrawal date. Remember how Iraq got broken, it may take a little longer to get out due to that strategy or lack there of.

I just heard the General was going to ask for 50K but was told to trim it down to 40K. I'm not too sure I'd say Iraq is broken. Are they better of today than at the start of the war?

quote:

I do remember a general named Westmoreland who kept asking for troops, how did that work out?

This is a somewhat simplistic argument. North Vietnam won more through it political war than through combat. But that was their strategy and it worked.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
I believe Obama has sent 21,000 additional troops to Astan. However, I also believe the latest request for 40,000 more troops in Astan may be more than even some generals wish to commit. None of us know for sure. I do remember a general named Westmoreland who kept asking for troops, how did that work out?

Are we not removing troops from Iraq? Most of the complainers here say we shouldn't set a withdrawal date but then complain that Obama hasn't set a withdrawal date. Remember how Iraq got broken, it may take a little longer to get out due to that strategy or lack there of.

Now that is one objective, open minded and moderate assessment!



NOT!

quote:

Most of the complainers here say we shouldn't set a withdrawal date but then complain that Obama hasn't set a withdrawal date. Remember how Iraq got broken, it may take a little longer to get out due to that strategy or lack there of.

The problem is as it has always been; are we in or out? If we're in, give the general what he wants NOW to achieve the final objective. If we're out, let's get out. If the administration doesn't know what the final objective by now then we should get out!

At least under GWB we had an objective AND supported the troops on the ground; not letting them fight and die while the POTUS reviewed strategy for weeks (now months) on how to fight a "politcally correct" war.

quote:

I'm of the opinion that we either fully support the General's request over there or pull our troops ASAP. I fear anything halfway is appeasing certain segments of his supporters and will get more of our troops killed. All in or all out!!

As I've posted on another thread during a mini-debate on exit strategies (are they good or bad in general?), I couldn't agree more. All in or fold was the term I used.

I'm still fearful of a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and it's possible destabilizing effect on nuclear-armed Pakistan, and why I believe the correct all in course is an integrated AfPak strategy. We adopt an Afghan-only strategy at our peril.

I'm even more fearful of a middle-of-the-road strategy that neither provides sufficient COIN resources nor a clear way out, yet maintains a significant combat presence in-country. We (and others) have previously tried that failed course in attempts to avoid potential domestic opposition to either all in or fold. France in Algeria, Britain in Northern Ireland, the US in Vietnam, for example.

While many details of the Vietnam and Afghan conflicts are substantially different, one glaring similarity is jarring: US support of a regime mistrusted by it's citizens that is both unquestionably corrupt and incapable of providing basic services and security. I sure don't have an answer to how to address that fundamental situation if we go all in. Which is why, despite my reservations about Pakistan, I lean toward both Susan Sontag and George Will: get out now. (When was the last time you saw those two on the same side of the fence?)

I also couldn't agree more with your observation that a middle course will just result in more casualties w/o redeeming benefits (e.g., a stable Afghanistan). Whatever your opinion of the person, John Kerry's question of 30-odd years ago still resonates: Who will order the last soldier to his death in pursuit of a mistake?

All in with an AfPak strategy or fold. Period.

v/r - jb

quote:

At least under GWB we had an objective AND supported the troops on the ground;

In Afghanistan?! Surely you jest. 43 abandoned Afghanistan, for all practical purposes, when the focus shifted to Iraq. But that's just MHO, and I would be interested in hearing what you think 43's post-Iraq invasion strategy in Afghanistan actually was.

v/r - jb

My Grandson Ben Willams took 5 tours of Aftganistan he called me when he got home Ben said to me "Grandma the war in Afganistan is unwinable Aftganistan and Pakistan been waring for hundreds of years the war is unwinable"

quote:

Originally posted by stormer73:
My Grandson Ben Willams took 5 tours of Aftganistan he called me when he got home Ben said to me "Grandma the war in Afganistan is unwinable Aftganistan and Pakistan been waring for hundreds of years the war is unwinable"

My neice in the Army just checked into Ft Bragg today. Her number is coming up for a road trip to the sandbox.

quote:

I would be interested in hearing what you think 43's post-Iraq invasion strategy in Afghanistan actually was.

Of course it was withdrawal once Osama Bin Laden was killed or captured. But as most everyone knows he is held up in the Pakistani badlands. The military succeeded in destroying most if not all major Al-Qaeda training bases, severely diminished the power of the Taliban, and assisted in establishing a central government with a democratically elected president.

What is happening now however is that the Taliban is regaining strength and more troops are needed to quell the insurgence. But our POTUS has decided to do a strategy review while our troops fight for survial.

quote:

43 abandoned Afghanistan, for all practical purposes, when the focus shifted to Iraq.

GWB did not abandon Afghanistan. He did what he could do there with the exception of getting Bin Laden. What did you want him to do, start a war with Pakistan by going in after him?

Matt,

quote:

This is a somewhat simplistic argument. North Vietnam won more through it political war than through combat. But that was their strategy and it worked.

Simplistic argument? How many troops were engaged, for how many years resulting in how many WIA and KIA with what result? You made my point anyway. It has nothing to do with the number of troops, it is the resolve of the indigenous people and their willingness to out wait our presence.

Scrounge,

quote:

Now that is one objective, open minded and moderate assessment!



NOT!

I feel better now. If you think it was illogical, it must be perfect. Of course your response truly points out the flaws. NOT!

Are we in Astan to take down Al Qaeda or to nation build by keeping the Taliban at bay? They are not the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
Matt,

quote:

This is a somewhat simplistic argument. North Vietnam won more through it political war than through combat. But that was their strategy and it worked.

Simplistic argument? How many troops were engaged, for how many years resulting in how many WIA and KIA with what result? You made my point anyway. It has nothing to do with the number of troops, it is the resolve of the indigenous people and their willingness to out wait our presence.

Of course you're ignoring that it was the voices of despair at home that sent the clear message that we could be defeated.

quote:

Originally posted by HonoraryMCPO:

quote:

At least under GWB we had an objective AND supported the troops on the ground;

In Afghanistan?! Surely you jest. 43 abandoned Afghanistan, for all practical purposes, when the focus shifted to Iraq. But that's just MHO, and I would be interested in hearing what you think 43's post-Iraq invasion strategy in Afghanistan actually was.

v/r - jb

No. The liberal media pundits stated he abandoned Afghanistan...Alot different than what really happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
Scrounge,

quote:

Now that is one objective, open minded and moderate assessment!



NOT!

I feel better now. If you think it was illogical, it must be perfect. Of course your response truly points out the flaws. NOT!

I'm merely pointing out your radical left bias...I said nothing about relevance or logic, you though, deducted properly, until you mentioned what I did not need to do. No need to try to reveal economic indicators this early, they would not be a reflection of the trillion dollar hole President Obama dug...But, it is coming down the pike. Promise: It's gonna be real ugly.