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.
It's a shame, but it's our own doing. Americans quit giving a 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 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.
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
Last edited by spursncowboys; 08-23-2012 at 09:50 PM.
disagree. there were stated goals. cover for troop withdrawal and leverage for negotiations with the Taliban are two I can recall.
yep. even more so when the metrics keep shifting.
so then, the Bush surge also failed. nor did it lead to a win.
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?
to level with voters, who are more or less fed up with it?
Ha! That's a good one
"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.
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 recons ute 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 " 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 hole to start with. If the Russians couldn't beat those savages right next door, what chance did we have from half a world away?
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.
nothing in war is "sure of working"
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 () 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...
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
