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.
John Bernard a retired Marine Sgt, recently lost his son Lcpl. Joshua Bernard who was killed in an ambush in Afghanistan. Bernard believes that Gen. McChrystal's proposed insurgent strategy is responsible for his son's death.
Bernard's criticism is aimed at new rules of engagement imposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, five weeks before Joshua Bernard was killed. They limit the use of airstrikes and require troops to break off combat when civilians are present, even if it means letting the enemy escape. They also call for greater cooperation with the Afghan National Army.
Under those rules, John Bernard said, Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage. In a letter to his congressman and Maine's U.S. senators, Bernard condemned "the insanity of the current situation and the suicidal position this administration has placed these warriors in."
"We've abandoned them in this Catch-22 where we're supposed to defend the population, but we can't defend them because we can't engage the enemy that is supposed to be the problem," he said in an interview with the AP.
I post this not to start a debate about the criticism of Gen. McChrystal or his strategy but only to illustrate what kind of war Gen. McChrystal has proposed. Sgt Bernard's comments best encapsulate why Gen. McChrystal is asking for more troops.
I think that those who are screaming for a quick decision on the part of President Obama need to really understand this part of McChrystal's proposal that is being considered, and what it will mean for U.S. combat forces.
We can all try to armchair QB this war. While McCrystal's strategy is different, it has good merit. All previous wars in this country was basically each army trying to apply the most damage to the other army. As history shows, that stategy never worked in Afghanistan.
McCrystal needs more troops to protect the Afghan people and take on the enemy by befriending the Afghans. The troops can then go in to the Taliban's hiding places and take them out.
Not saying that will work either, but something has to be done, or we can just through up our hands and bring the "boys" home.
If it were me we would be using our army to kill people and break things.
Ah, that doesn't work in counter-insurgency.
Quote:
however it seems we are (and have been thru this entire episode) more worried about press reports than about driving home a win.
Yes, of course what the indigenous population thinks is totally irrelevant!
Quote:
If we fought now, like we fought in WW2 we would have this thing nailed down.
Yes, it would be ever so nice if the the Taliban, wearing recognizable uniforms would simply dig in with a tank division along the Hindu Kush and fight like a panzer division.
We can all try to armchair QB this war. While McCrystal's strategy is different, it has good merit. All previous wars in this country was basically each army trying to apply the most damage to the other army. As history shows, that stategy never worked in Afghanistan.
McCrystal needs more troops to protect the Afghan people and take on the enemy by befriending the Afghans. The troops can then go in to the Taliban's hiding places and take them out.
Not saying that will work either, but something has to be done, or we can just through up our hands and bring the "boys" home.
And just when I thought all intelligent life had disappeared...
Yes, that is the strategy that is being discussed. But the general impression around these here parts seem to think that the request for more troops will translate into fewer casualties when it means quite the opposite. That was the point of posting Bernard's remarks.
Is it a good strategy or ill, is for others at a higher pay grade than mine to decide, but their is far more at stake than simply sending more troops.
Once again, with feeling, the issue isn't about blame but rather an accurate outline of what McChrystals, proposal will mean for troops on the ground.
Please, not thread hijacking.
Have you lost a child? Parents want to blame someone or something for the death of their child. Its human nature when you lose someone you love you want to blame someone or something. Some even blame GOD
I am not trying to hijack but if we want to talk about them lacking things they need maybe they shouldnt be taking from the military to give to their pet projects
Yes, of course what the indigenous population thinks is totally irrelevant!
Yes, it would be ever so nice if the the Taliban, wearing recognizable uniforms would simply dig in with a tank division along the Hindu Kush and fight like a panzer division.
I subscribe to theory of Parking Lot diplomacy.
First rule, never invade anyone first.
Second rule if you are attacked invade and kill everything that moves.
Cut down the trees, bulldoze the entire country and pour cement and stripe it off like a parking lot.
[color=black][font=Verdana]I subscribe to theory of Parking Lot diplomacy.
I don't have time to high school students, armchair warriors, chicken hawks or other assorted fools.
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.
