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.
The only person who is clueless is one who starts a thread that is no deeper than the headline that use to base their knowledge upon.
This argument seems to be the talking point of week, so let's review what is actually being discussed.
First, U.S. troops and the casualties being throw about, are not the result of allied forces being overwhelmed, this isn't the Afghan version of the Little Big Horn.
Second, theater commanders are focused on the task they are assigned, not the political issues which civilian leadership must contend with.
Third, there is a thread, which I have yet to weigh in on about the lessons not learned from Vietnam, apparently the White House has learned them and is weighing, necessarily, how to avoid the same mistakes.
As for McChrystal's leaked report a few things.
First, McChrystal hasn't called for immediate reenforcements as you assume. According the Bob Woodward, who came into possession of the assessement, McChrystal is calling for an increase of 10,000 to 40,000 troops over the course of the next 12 months, not today, not tomorrow, over the course of the year.
“In his Aug. 30 classified assessment, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and International Security Assistance Force commander, said he urgently needs more troops within the next year…”
Second, McChrystal is calling for the additional forces in order to completely revamp U.S. strategy:
“McChrystal makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "[i]nadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced."
Third, McChrystal’s accessment is that unless this change in strategy is adopted the U.S. effort in Afghanistan will fail. Herein lies the rub, his accessment doesn’t state that the new strategy will guarantee success. As a result Obama must weigh the ramifications of deploying over 100,000 troops to a open ended commitment, against a backdrop of the declining support of the American people for the war in Afghanistan. And, if that weren’t enough, the use of adding those forces to support what McChrystal himself describes as:
"The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,"
Not to mention a completely fraudulent election which has left resulted in a greater lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people for a government that controls no more than a few blocks of the capital Kabul!
Yet, you and other’s, only gleening what you wish to gleen from headlines think that the issues do not rate being thoughtful consideration?
Perhaps those who argue that the U.S. learned nothing from Vietnam, not to mention Iraq, are correct.
Excellent points. sadly they will no doubt be over the heads of some in this thread.
Excellent points. sadly they will no doubt be over the heads of some in this thread.
Well of course it will because as you and I both know that couldn't give a rat's butt about Afghanistan to begin with. The war was totally off the Republican/conservative radar screen for 6 (or has it been 7 years) while they yelled and screamed about the need to support Bush's mad adventure in Iraq.
They didn't care when the units tracking bin Laden, the 5th Special Forces (trained in Pastun and Arabic) along with the 160th Special Operations Air Regiment were transferred out of Afghanistan and tasked to look for WMD, they didn't care in 2006 when NATO commanders were begging for a mere 2,500 more troops and material so to say that they suddenly care about what is going on in Afghanistan now is deeply disingenuous at best.
Only a Republican would think it a bad thing that the President takes time to plan a strategy. To really think it out well. W did not have an exit strategy for Iraq because he did not PLAN well.
First of all Obama is not planning ANY strategy, he has no clue about that stuff. His Generals have a strategy and he's not listening. I think it's foolish if you think Obama knows ANYTHING at all about military strategies.
First of all Obama is not planning ANY strategy, he has no clue about that stuff. His Generals have a strategy and he's not listening. I think it's foolish if you think Obama knows ANYTHING at all about military strategies.
It would appear that you are the one not listening:
I think Obama should just fly over to the Gulf, get into a flight jump suit, and then on the deck of an aircraft carrier proclaim "Mission accomplished!"
I think Obama should just fly over to the Gulf, get into a flight jump suit, and then on the deck of an aircraft carrier proclaim "Mission accomplished!"
Well we know how well that worked (although it did get Bush re-elected, Axelrod you listening?).
So how many more troops would have died if he had approved the reinforcements/
Would the first of these reinforcement have arrived yet?
This is almost treasonous hyperbole.
EVEN IF OBAMA HAD APPROVED THE REINFORCEMENTS NONE WOULD HAVE ARRIVED YET SO THE IDEA THAT THESE TROOPS WOULD NOT HAVE DIED IS A LIE
Obama needs to check with the focus groups before he can make a decision...
If you wish to call his national security advisors a focus group, that's fine with me. Perhaps if Bush had listened to his, more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers, marines and sailors would be alive today, and Afghanistan not the hell hole that it has become.
Strategy for Afghanistan. There is NO strategy for Victory.You must understand Afghan. history. A history made by war. they've defeated UK. and USSR. in the past two superpowers.Troops and money will be wasted when we leave there. they will go right back to tribal warfare.We need to stop bin laden and his crew yes.But they can be anywhere in the world. We need the CIA to hunt him down.
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.
