Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One big problem, from my reading of a different article, is that President Trump is of the opinion that the conflict in Afghanistan can be 'won' if he had a different general, perhaps.
Of course, history teaches us that Afghanistan is a virtually impossible country to conquer. The British learned that lesson (twice) in the 1800s, and, more recently, the Soviets learned that bitter lesson. The Soviets even had a much shorter supply line than the British (or us, for that fact), and they had little concern about sparing civilians.
I suppose that the best that can be hoped for, after 16 years, is to stabilize the situation to the point where we can get the heck out, and then hope that the Afghan army can then keep hostilities away from the major cities. We would also hope that 'the enemy', whomever they are (including those that rise up) do not obtain the various weapons we have provided the Afghan army and that we leave on the ground upon departure.
It was in August 2010 that the number of US Troops in Afghanistan reached 100,000. Yet, we did not 'win'. By the time Obama left office, we still had some 9,000 troops. Recently, President Trump said that we would send another 4,000 (whether they have deployed yet, I do not know).
My concern: If Mr. Trump becomes fixated on 'winning' in Afghanistan, he will probably keep ramping up that number. It does not bode well for our men and women in the military if he actually believes that we can 'win' Afghanistan.
One big problem, from my reading of a different article, is that President Trump is of the opinion that the conflict in Afghanistan can be 'won' if he had a different general, perhaps.
There is nothing to win. There never has been but.........16 years.
Now tense meetings with generals is cause for alarm?
Didn't BO fire some?
Obama relieved General McChrystal of his duties in Afghanistan after he did an interview in Rolling Stone.
Robert Gates was the one responsible for firing several generals during his term under Bush and Obama, he even fired the Secretary of the Army. All for valid reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird
So incompetence is no big deal?
Inability to win a war without sufficient troops does not equate to incompetence. Public statements like this impact moral and make it that much tougher on our troops. If Trump has something to say it should be behind closed doors, not in public. Public humiliation of employees never has a positive result.
Trump claimed he was an expert during the election and that he knew more than the generals yet he recently left the strategy in Afghanistan up to the military leaders and now he is critical.
If anyone has a solution to Afghanistan other than complete withdrawal I would love to hear it. The best solution would be to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, they are not going anywhere and we can't bomb and shoot our way out of this one.
For cause. If memory serves, one was for sexual assault, another for some sort of misconduct.
This is not the same thing. At all. Even insubordinate statements, as in Truman/MacArthur, is not in play.
edit to add: It appears that Trump's gripe is that the Generals are "offering bad advice".
That seems - random - to say the least.
The only cause was that they didn't tow his SJW line. Stop lying so damn much already.
Think about it if the first boot on the ground over there had a newborn at the time, 18 years later a next generation is now being deployed over there as well.
But didn't Truman fire MacArthur? So it is in the president's ability be it right or wrong.
"For cause. If memory serves, one was for sexual assault, another for some sort of misconduct."
Which is why many of us do NOT trust the MSM.
The MSM did NOT report on all the Obama firings therefore YOU don't know.
Do a search using, number of generals and admirals fired by Obama, and get an education.
I don't care why Obama fired generals. That's his right.
The bottom line is that Trump can fire all the generals he wants, but he ain't "winning" anything in Afghanistan no matter what. Therefore, he's fantasizing with this stupid idea that changing commanders will produce a better outcome. It won't.
Think about it if the first boot on the ground over there had a newborn at the time, 18 years later a next generation is now being deployed over there as well.
But didn't Truman fire MacArthur? So it is in the president's ability be it right or wrong.
Yes he did, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would care why generals get fired. Generals aren't emperors, they're simply military officers. Nothing more. I care more about why my Walmart cashier got fired than why a president would force a general off of active duty. Fired generals collect six figure pensions and go on to million dollar jobs in private industry or defense contracting....hardly a group to feel bad for. Especially when a good amount of them are Peter Principle types.
Trump is an authoritarian, so he thinks that generals can fix Afghanistan. He's clueless.
Yes he did, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would care why generals get fired. Generals aren't emperors, they're simply military officers. Nothing more. I care more about why my Walmart cashier got fired than why a president would force a general off of active duty. Fired generals collect six figure pensions and go on to million dollar jobs in private industry or defense contracting....hardly a group to feel bad for. Especially when a good amount of them are Peter Principle types.
Trump is an authoritarian, so he thinks that generals can fix Afghanistan. He's clueless.
As have been the decisions of the last 16 years. Did you think Trump would do better?
Yes he did, and frankly, I have no idea why anyone would care why generals get fired. Generals aren't emperors, they're simply military officers. Nothing more. I care more about why my Walmart cashier got fired than why a president would force a general off of active duty. Fired generals collect six figure pensions and go on to million dollar jobs in private industry or defense contracting....hardly a group to feel bad for. Especially when a good amount of them are Peter Principle types.
Trump is an authoritarian, so he thinks that generals can fix Afghanistan. He's clueless.
I am irked by the point that the first American soldier who got in a firefight over there with a Taliban, if that soldier and Taliban had a son, now their sons are in a firefight with each other. 2 generations at war there so far.
I use to support A-stan , to eliminate the Taliban to the point they are no longer a viable threat but now I believe the motives for continuing the war is more about financial gain then security . Both political parties are ****
I am irked by the point that the first American soldier who got in a firefight over there with a Taliban, if that soldier and Taliban had a son, now their sons are in a firefight with each other. 2 generations at war there so far.
I use to support A-stan , to eliminate the Taliban to the point they are no longer a viable threat but now I believe the motives for continuing the war is more about financial gain then security . Both political parties are ****
And then I read that most heroin is cultivated in Afghan, and now the USA is having a heroin epidemic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
