Printable View
story
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us...e.html?_r=1&hp
Faces of the dead
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/u...opes_gregory_t
Graphs
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ghanistan.html
When are the candidates going to discuss Afghanistan?
When is Obama going to say that his "surge" was successful/unsuccessful?
this war was doomed to failure long before Obama took office. the pivot to Iraq in 2003 was fateful.
neither the Bush surge in Iraq nor the Obama surge in Afghanistan were designed to lead to victory.
Apparently never. It's like there's some kind of gentlemen's agreement or understanding between the two camps that this issue is just going to be swept under the rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
It's a shame, but it's our own doing. Americans quit giving a shit about Afghanistan a long time ago and those wanting to win popularity contests aren't going to waste time talking about something that we don't give a shit about.
This isn't a bush did this type discussion. Bush is gone. Obama has been president for three years. Human lives are on the line. The electoral system and the candidates owe these people at war or about to go to war something. As you can tell, I don't think Obama is taking this seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
As far as the surge, Bush's generals said the key to success was first to hold Baghdad. I was there when we first swept through Baghdad. It worked, in clearing out the militias and terrorists. However we did not have the manpower to hold the area we had just cleared. That was the main reason for the surge. To have guys stay in baghdad on every corner to make sure the enemy did not come back. Obama did the surge, with no clear end game, except us getting out at a specific date. There were no specific goal to achieve. Although I was not privy to the overall mission, it seemed to me that we were trying to push the taliban to pakistan.
I completely disagree with isaf's rules of engagement and believe the war fought in iraq worked much better, because the boots on the ground were not handcuffed. obama has accepted our ROE in afghanistan. But it appears to me not to be working. If Obama thinks it is working, he should say so. If not, he needs to change it. So far, Morning Joe is the only political show to ask an Obama aide about Afghanistan. The only thing she said was Obama is taking it serious and that is why he is maintaining the arbitrary date of 2014. Under the estimates of how many we have lost in the past year, we should expect 1500-2000 more men in uniform deaths.
We should not be in a war, unless we are working towards a win! Win, I understand is subjective. But any kind of goal besides, leaving on a certain date.
EDIT: Bush accepted ISAF's ROE as well
disagree. there were stated goals. cover for troop withdrawal and leverage for negotiations with the Taliban are two I can recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
yep. even more so when the metrics keep shifting.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
so then, the Bush surge also failed. nor did it lead to a win.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
btw, SnC, thanks for posting something on the longest running war in US history. it deserves the spotlight you're giving it and so do the warriors who've fought and died there.
You Lie
Petraeus' surge failed, INCREASED the number of US military killed. and horribly alienated 1000s of Iraqis.
The violence was already decreasing for reasons totally separate from Petraeus' surge, which actually increased the violence and US deaths.
What did succeed is the Repug/Army/Petraeus marketing campaign to LIE about the surge to the ignorant.
Petraeus is now International Man of Murder, his SOCOM murdering "bad guys" all over the planet, plus 1000s of innocents.
Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...comm_ref=false
What's the point of bringing it up when both sides hold the same views?Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
to level with voters, who are more or less fed up with it?
:lmao
Ha! That's a good one :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
"Guys, we know you're tired of the war... that's right, remember, there's still a war? Yeah, the Afghanistan one. Ok, now that everyone's on the same page... uhm... we're going to keep it going indefinitely. I know I set a date of 2014, but that could and will likely change. Oh and we won't really have accomplished anything.
But take a look over here! We've got a brand new war we're going to start, in Syria! Your new Iraq, ladies and gentleman!"
That's pretty much where we're at.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I used to support this war, but the last few years, as well as the rubbing out of OBL, have shown me the futility of continuing to waste lives for a corrupt government and an ungrateful populace
Let all these tribes go back to their perpetual, low-intensity conflicts.
After we leave, the biggest difference that could be made in terms of discouraging future terrorist activity would be for western civilization to legalize/decriminalize/regulate opium related drugs. Take the profits out and there won't be nearly as much money for the Taliban or any remaining Al-Qaeda elements to reconstitute and cause trouble for the United States.
The only other way I see of giving that country any hope for the future would be to invest trillions in infrastructure and social programs. This, of course, is a fairy tale scenario that just won't happen.
Our leaders need to figure out that every now and then it's okay to throw your hands up in the air and say "fuck it"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the military told Obama they needed X number of troops for the surge to be sure of working didn't he give them like 1/2x?
Found it. McCrystal requested 40,000+ and got 30,000 with restricted ROE.
X2 except I didn't support going into that shithole to start with. If the Russians couldn't beat those savages right next door, what chance did we have from half a world away?Quote:
Originally Posted by symple19
I think he issued an order to send 30K troops... not sure the military asked for more... but the underlying point is, what for? There's no "winning" in Afghanistan as there was no "winning" in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
nothing in war is "sure of working" :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
A million troops probably couldn't completely tame Afghanistan, nor even significantly quell poppy production
Would also need boots on the ground in the Pakistani Frontier Tribal areas as well as a competent effort (:lmao) by the PAF to aid us.
It's a lost cause and definitely not Obamas fault for withholding 10 or 20 thousand troops (whatever the actual number was)
or the British...Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
or the Tsars...
or Alexander...
or the Indians...
or the Persians...
IIRC, the Mongols and their descendants were the only ones to come in and rule for a long period
Shinseki told Bush he needed X number for Iraq. He got fired for the suggestion. "War on the cheap" is a pattern that precedes Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Yes, another Obama fuck up. If he cannot commit the resources needed to do the job right, then we should get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Which of our goals in Iraq didn't we achieve?
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
He had his retirement plans in a year before that took place.
What goals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Exactly.
Since when do you believe John Kerry?
CNN Fact Check
What I can't believe is that it is CNN I this at!Quote:
Claim: Kerry said that former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was forced out for comments on Iraq troop levels.
CNN Fact Check: Kerry implies that Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his comments about troop levels in Iraq, which is inaccurate. Shinseki served a full four-year term as Army chief of staff, and did not retire early. Since World War II, no Army chief of staff has served longer than four years.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided in April 2002 on who he would tap to succeed Shinseki, according to a Pentagon official, long before Shinseki's troop level comments in 2003. So by the time Shinseki made his comments on troop levels, it was already known that he would not remain in his post beyond his full four-year term. The Bush administration may not have been fond of Shinseki, who was appointed to his post by President Clinton, but it is inaccurate to say that he was forced to retire because of his comments on troop levels in Iraq.
We achieved our goals, therefore we won.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
...
Oh wait...
Did you think it was for oil or something?
What were our goals?
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
You're wrong. Here's the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz24JnAOdlWQuote:
Originally Posted by FoxNews
Please don't whine. You asked.
You got me on this one, WC. My memory is occasionally faulty. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra