http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/3...d-afghanistan/
I cannot speak about the economy, education or healthcare, but I can speak about Afghanistan. Obama cannot be faulted that Afghanistan is stone-aged, or that our military strategy was wrecked when he took office. It was. The bus was in a ditch. Obama showed up with a wrecker, promising to yank it out. Today the wrecker is in the ditch atop the bus.
Our young troops are something to be proud of, and if you saw them in action you would be amazed at their courage and professionalism. The mess we shoved them into is a national shame. We provided about half the troops required for the stated strategy, then began pulling them out against a domestic political deadline that has nothing to do with the war. The surge has been a complete waste of effort.
At least 30% of Afghan trainees must be replaced annually due to desertions and endemic corruption. Training Afghans to replace Coalition forces is not working. As we draw down, the enemy will be able to focus on fewer troops. Hollow Afghan units will collapse, and corrupt Afghan politicians will finally abscond to Dubai. We should cut our losses and remove the bulk of our force.
Although Obama needs to go home, this is no guarantee that Romney will do better. If Romney is elected, he will need a bigger wrecker. He is guaranteed the same honest chance that Obama received. Nothing less, nothing more.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204796
Already posted and destroyed. Sorry. It doesn't say what you think it says, and he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.
Damn, it's still on the front page.
Lazy drive-by.
My bad
And I didn't give my position about it, now did I?
Wrap yourself back up in your blue banner and carry on
Yeah, you didn't give a position. Lazy.
Still haven't read the other thread, I see.
Feel free to weigh in your considered opinion there. Your criticism would have more weight if you had bothered to venture anything, and read the part where I took both the criticism seriously and took Obama to task. (shrugs)
As it is: Lazeee.
I think we should leave. Now. Yesterday.
If you follow Yon's blog, as I do, you'd know exactly where he's coming from. He's made a living of attacking the strategies of both administrations and their Generals, as well as those of other countries (Brits).
I think our last two president's have 'fumbled' Afghanistan. What Yon has repeatedly pointed out is that if you're going to do it, do it right or get the out.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red...ac-failure.htm
There's the post about medevacs, and he's exactly right
The guy is the only war correspondent I know of who goes in and reports the truth. If there's any bias at all, it's toward the soldiers and the ordeals that he shares with them on a regular basis.
Do I take everything he says as gospel? No. Do I respect him more than literally every other journalist/blogger/correspondent that has reported on either of our last two wars? Yes.
And lol Darrin posting this in the first place as simply an attack on Obama. I'm an Iraq vet so I'm more concerned with our people dying needlessly in a corrupt state whose people don't even want us there anymore (if they ever did in the first place)
Not enough troops? check
propping up corrupt government? check
trying some hearts and minds bull this late in the game? check
continuing to operate after the original stated goal was achieved? check
(in many cases) poorly equipped troops? check
continuing many of the failed strategies of Bush? check
Yeah, Obama's administration has fumbled. Other than OBL, his admin has achieved nothing
You do understand we didn't invade Afghanistan because they wanted us to, right?
Symple, regarding the medevacs, is he really saying that they shouldn't have the Red Cross symbol? That they should fly without it?
FM3-24
MCWP 3-33.5
If you have never read it, it makes for good reading.
(written/developed by a young and upcoming colonel)
That's kind of like saying, "Other than killing and eating other people, Dahmer wasn't such a bad guy"
The story behind it is actually kind of fascinating, if one hasn't heard it already.
They gave a young colonel (rank just below general, and where they figure out who gets to general and who needs to GTFO) a mandate to figure out what went wrong in Vietnam, and update US counterinsurgency doctrine. Dude talked to anybody and everybody, assembled a bunch of eggheads, and did so.
Colonel Patreus was then called on to put it into action as a general.
Which is funny, because the author of the OP critisizes the doctrine, but calls for the guy who wrote it to be put back in charge.
Meaning, the guy who wrote the article in the OP is an idiot.
(note who wrote the forward)
DAVID H. PETRAEUS JAMES F. AMOS
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army
Commander
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
What I find delicious is that the doctrine focuses hugely on "soft power" over hard power. Ballots over bullets.In 2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad. In a campaign chronicled in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson of The Washington Post in the book In the Company of Soldiers, Petraeus led his division through fierce fighting south of Baghdad, in Karbala, Hilla and Najaf. Following the fall of Baghdad, the division conducted the longest heliborne assault on record in order to reach Ninawa Province, where it would spend much of 2003. The 1st Brigade was responsible for the area south of Mosul, the 2nd Brigade for the city itself, and the 3rd Brigade for the region stretching toward the Syrian border. An often-repeated story of Petraeus' time with the 101st is his asking of embedded Washington Post reporter Rick Atkinson to "Tell me how this ends,"[45] an anecdote he and other journalists have used to portray Petraeus as an early recognizer of the difficulties that would follow the fall of Baghdad.[46][47][48][49][50][51]
In Mosul, a city of nearly two million people, Petraeus and the 101st employed classic counterinsurgency methods to build security and stability, including conducting targeted kinetic operations and using force judiciously, jump-starting the economy, building local security forces, staging elections for the city council within weeks of their arrival, overseeing a program of public works, reinvigorating the political process,[52][53][54] and launching 4,500 reconstruction projects in Iraq.[55] This approach can be attributed to Petraeus, who had been steeped in nation-building during his previous tours in nations such as Bosnia and Haiti and thus approached nation-building as a central military mission and who was "prepared to act while the civilian authority in Baghdad was still getting organized," according to Michael Gordon of The New York Times.[56] Some Iraqis gave Petraeus the nickname 'King David',[52][57] which was later adopted by some of his colleagues.[58][59][60] Newsweek has stated that "It's widely accepted that no force worked harder to win Iraqi hearts and minds than the 101st Air Assault Division led by Petraeus."
It is the kind of thing a Democrat would come up with, and a Republican would hate.
Which is probably why it works, IMO.
One should read as a corollary,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon%27s_New_Map
This was the guy who provided the intellectual background that allowed a guy like Patreaus to rise to the top, and his thinking is VERY influential among leadership in the military at the moment.
Here is a TED talk by the guy (very much in favor of going into Iraq, by the way, for what I think were the right reasons, but question the timing)
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barn...for_peace.html
You're trying really hard, RG. Remember the Northern Alliance and all the other Warlords who directly benefited from our invasion? I don't think it's a stretch to say that there were certain elements who wanted us there initially
Read the article for yourself and figure it out on your own
Then the answer must be "Yes, he's an idiot."
Thats a basic law of LOAC right there. Not putting signs on our helicopters would allow them to be shot at.Despite sustained national coverage of the MEDEVAC issue and direct appeals to the White House and Obama’s chosen Secretary of Defense, our helicopters still fly over Islamic Afghanistan wearing Red Crosses, which signals that the helicopters are unarmed, has caused unforgivable delays removing wounded troops from the battlefield.
Furthermore, RG, your smug attempt by throwing the counterinsurgency FM out there is noted, but notice I said, "late in the game."
There really wasn't a concerted effort to follow one clear strategy from the outset, whether it be Petreaus' way or anyone else. Afghanistan was put on the backburner for many years where we lost the opportunity to maintain the initial momentum we had after running the Taliban back into the boonies.
If we had implemented more of DP's ideas after they proved so successful in Iraq, we may have been in a better position than that which we find ourselves currently...But I doubt it. Realities on the ground, geography, lack of infrastructure, tribal divisions, language, all would have made it much more difficult to do what we did in Iraq. We've always been 100-150 K (or more) light in terms of boots on the ground and I always thought we should have rolled into the Pakistani tribal regions and cleaned that up as well.
Fact is, there isn't anything left to do other than pull out and watch Karzai and his awful government collapse while the Taliban move back in and take over. It's not going to be pretty either.
Your article, you support what the guy is saying, your burden. Quit being lazy, and connect the dots, because I have a hard time seeing the basis of this claim, and I browsed through the 2011 memo.
Indeed there were.
That isn't why we invaded Afghanistan. Those people would have welcomed us on September 10, 2001, as well. (Hint hint)
I agree. Iraq was a huge, bizarre, unnecessary diversion of resources from Afghanistan.
LOL "rolling into Pakistan".
What makes Pakistan different than Iraq or Afghanistan? (hint, it rhymes with mooclear meapons)
And yes technically I know they don't follow LOAC already, but that doesn't stop us from doing so. If we stop putting up medical signs we effectively can't complain when they get shot at.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
